MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401552810 · doi:10.1111/cid.13372

Assessment of the application of a novel three‐dimension printing individualized titanium mesh in alveolar bone augmentation: A retrospective study

2024· article· en· W4401552810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chang Yun Liu, Jinmeng Li, Shuo Zhang, Hanyu Xiao, Yanying Wang, Jian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDental alveolusDentistryMedicineAlveolar ridgeRadiographyTitaniumOrthodonticsSurgeryImplantMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of alveolar ridge augmentation using a novel three-dimensional printed individualized titanium mesh (3D-PITM) for guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to evaluate alveolar ridge defects, followed by augmentation with high-porosity 3D-PITM featuring circular and spindle-shaped pores. Postoperative CBCT scans were taken immediately and after 6 months of healing. These scans were compared with preoperative scans to calculate changes in bone volume, height, and width, along with the corresponding resorption rates. A statistical analysis of the results was then conducted. RESULTS: , with a resorption rate of 16.05% ± 8.07%. For 38 implant sites, the average vertical bone increment was 3.63 ± 2.29 mm, with a resorption rate of 17.55% ± 15.10%. The horizontal bone increment at the designed implant platform was 4.43 ± 1.85 mm, with a resorption rate of 25.26% ± 15.73%. The horizontal bone increment 2 mm below the platform was 5.50 ± 2.48 mm, with a resorption rate of 16.03% ± 9.57%. The main complication was exposure to 3D-PITM, which occurred at a rate of 15.79%. CONCLUSION: The novel 3D-PITM used in GBR resulted in predictable bone augmentation. Moderate over-augmentation in the design, proper soft tissue management, and rigorous follow-ups are beneficial for reducing the graft resorption and the incidence of exposure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designObservational
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→