MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405283463 · doi:10.1111/cid.13422

Efficacy of Collagen Matrix for Establishing Keratinized Mucosa at Dental Implants: A 5‐Year Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4405283463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diyuan Wei, Qi Wang, Huiping Sui, Yixuan Qin, Han Zhang, Huanxin Meng, Jie Han

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDentistryMedicineRandomized controlled trialMatrix (chemical analysis)Oral mucosaOrthodonticsSurgeryMaterials sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the 5-year outcomes of collagen matrix (CM) and free gingival graft (FGG) used to augment the keratinized mucosa (KM) around posterior dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients (44 implants) with inadequate KM (< 2 mm) on posterior dental implants were randomized into two groups that received KM augmentation with CM or FGG. Clinical measurements comprising the KM width (KMW), buccal mucosal thickness (MT), and clinical parameters were examined in a 5-year follow-up. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was evaluated with standardized radiographs using the paralleling technique. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the first week post-surgery and at the 5-year follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: KMW increased significantly during the follow-up period in both groups. The FGG group had a significantly greater KMW than the CM group at the 1, 2-month follow-up and after the 6-month follow-up. KM shrinkage was observed, and was greatest within the first 2 months post-surgery in both groups. At the 5-year follow-up, the KM shrinkage was significantly different between the groups (FGG: 47%; CM: 70%) (p < 0.01). The MT increased significantly in the FGG group. The clinical parameters and MBL were similar between the groups. The bleeding score in the FGG group was higher than that in the CM group (p < 0.05) within the first 2 days post-surgery, while other PROs scores were similar between groups in the first week post-surgery. At 5-year follow-up, all patients were highly satisfied with the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: FGG was superior to CM in terms of the KM augmentation and MT increase. Except for a slight difference in self-reported bleeding during the first two post-operative days, CM didn't demonstrate other significant advantages in PROMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR1800018285 (date of registration: 9/9/2018, retrospectively registered. URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=24156).

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)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207