An apically positioned flap and free gingival graft around an implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the ‘2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions,’ hard and soft tissue deficiencies have been debated in the literature with keratinized mucosa at the forefront. In this case report, the present author investigated whether an apically positioned flap and free gingival graft to increase keratinized mucosa and vestibular depth improved oral hygiene and patient comfort around an implant-retained upper complete denture. Using an apically positioned flap in combination with free gingival graft to augment the soft tissues around implants with hard and soft tissue deficiencies, increased both the keratinized mucosa and vestibular depth to correct the soft tissue deficiencies. This case report highlights the importance keratinized mucosa and vestibular depth has at the patient and site level in improving oral hygiene and patient comfort. This case report also supports the growing evidence that the ideal periodontal phenotype around implants is to have keratinized mucosa ≥2 mm and vestibular depth ≥4 mm. CPD/Clinical Relevance: This case report supports growing evidence that the ideal periodontal phenotype around implants is to have keratinized mucosa ≥2 mm and vestibular depth ≥4 mm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".