MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401497099 · doi:10.1111/cid.13365

Clinical efficacy of two vertical soft tissue augmentation techniques for peri‐implant crestal bone level stability: A randomized clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4401497099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Algirdas Puišys, Eglė Vindašiūtė, Dainius Razukevičius, Samuel Akhondi, German O. Gallucci, Ignacio Pedrinaci

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft tissueMedicineDentistryImplantPeriAbutmentBone graftingRadiographySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two techniques—acellular dermal matrix (ADM) grafting and tenting technique (TT)—for soft tissue height (STH) augmentation simultaneous to implant placement to minimize peri‐implant crestal bone level (CBL) changes. Methods Forty patients with a healed single mandibular posterior edentulous site with a thin soft tissue phenotype were enrolled. Twenty patients received simultaneously to implant placement ADM grafting, while the others received submerged healing abutment (TT). Clinical peri‐implant soft tissue height and radiographic CBL changes were measured at restoration delivery and 1‐year follow‐up. Results Both techniques effectively increased soft tissue thickness, resulting in a final average STH of 3.4 ± 0.5 mm after augmentation. On average, soft tissue increased by 1.6 ± 0.5 mm in group ADM and by 1.8 ± 0.4 mm in group TT after augmentation. In Group ADM, mesial CBL decreased from 0.4 ± 0.3 mm to 0.1 ± 0.2 mm, and distal CBL decreased from 0.5 ± 0.3 mm to 0.2 ± 0.3 mm over 1 year. In Group TT, mesial CBL remained stable at 0.3 ± 0.2 mm, while distal CBL reduced slightly from 0.5 ± 0.5 mm to 0.3 ± 0.2 mm. Both groups showed minimal changes in CBL, indicating great stability (pmesial = 0.003, pdistal = 0.004). TT was particularly effective in preventing mesial bone loss (pmesial = 0.019). The mesial CBL changes significantly differed between groups (p = 0.019), and not significantly at distal sites (p = 0.944). Neither treatment exhibited significant bone remodeling below the implant shoulder. Conclusion This study suggests that both techniques were successful in STH augmentation, and they may effectively reduce peri‐implant crestal bone level changes, with TT being slightly superior. TT was more prone to post‐surgical complications. This RCT was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→