The impact of collagen membrane fixation protocols on volume stability in horizontal ridge augmentation in the aesthetic area: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different collagen membran fixation protocols on the volume stability in horizontal ridge augmentation in the aesthetic area. METHODS: A total of 48 patients with 65 augmented sites were included in this study. Implants were placed in the aesthetic region, and simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgery was performed for horizontal ridge augmentation. Participants were divided into four groups, each comprising 12 patients, based on different absorbable collagen membrane fixation protocols. Group 1: without fixation; Group 2: fixation with absorbable sutures; Group 3: fixation with titanium pins; Group 4: fixation with titanium pins and absorbable sutures. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately after surgery and at 6 months post-surgery, respectively. The horizontal thickness of the augmented region was analyzed for volume stability at the implant shoulder (H0) and 1-5 mm apical to the implant shoulder (H1-H5). Changes in labial thickness during bone healing were calculated as absolute values (mm) and relative values (%). RESULTS: After 6 months of bone healing, horizontal thickness was significantly reduced at all levels (H0-H5) in all groups compared to immediate post-surgery results (p < 0.05). At H1-H5, horizontal bone loss in group 1 was significantly higher than in the other three groups (p < 0.05). Group 4 exhibited significantly less horizontal bone loss compared to group 2 at H0-H2 (p < 0.05) and group 4 compared to group 3 at H0-H1 (p < 0.05). No significant difference in horizontal bone loss between groups 2 and 3 was detected at H0-H5 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Guided bone regeneration in the aesthetic area with additional membrane fixation demonstrated superior volume stability of the augmented region compared to cases without fixation. There was no significant difference in bone volume stability between membrane fixation with titanium pins and fixation with absorbable sutures. However, the combined use of pins and absorbable sutures yielded superior volume stability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".