A novel “microscrew with tie-down sutures” technique for FGG anchorage: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most difficult and time-consuming step in the free gingival graft (FGG) for keratinized mucosa augmentation is the compression suture anchoring the FGG to the periosteum. In this article, a novel "microscrew with tie-down sutures" technique was proposed to anchor the FGG to the recipient site without the traditional trans-periosteum suture. This patient's keratinized mucosa width (KMW) around the healing abutments of teeth #29 and #30 was less than 1 mm. After an apically positioned flap (AFP) was prepared, two microscrews were placed at the buccal plate of the alveolar ridge bone, which is the coronal margin of the AFP. Then, the sutures winded between the microscrews and the healing abutments to anchor the FGG. In conclusion, the "microscrew with tie-down sutures" technique offers a feasible and simple alternative for the trans-periosteum compression suture, particularly in situations when the periosteum is fragile, thin, or injured.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".