Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Following Implant Placement With Simultaneous Horizontal Bone Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation on patients' willingness to repeat the procedure. Secondary outcomes included assessing patient-reported outcome measures, clinical- and surgical-related factors affecting treatment outcomes. METHODS: Subjects who were currently undergoing or have undergone implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation in the esthetic region (maxillary second premolar to second premolar) were assigned to three groups: Group A (short-term), Group B (1-5 years post-surgery), and Group C (> 5 years post-surgery). Clinical assessments, dichotomous questions, and visual analogue scales were used to evaluate therapeutic outcomes according to the group of interest. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients completed the study (n = 50 per group). In Group A, 16% experienced wound dehiscence (membrane exposure < 3 mm), and 2% had postoperative bleeding, infection, swelling, or abscess. Flaps extending beyond three teeth significantly increased early membrane exposure (p = 0.04). Patient-reported postoperative discomfort (p < 0.001) and wound healing scores (p < 0.04) decreased over time. Willingness to repeat the procedure was 100%, 88%, and 98% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively, with satisfaction rates of 98.2 ± 7.5, 91.2 ± 10.6, and 95.2 ± 10.9. No significant differences were found between Groups B and C for functional or esthetic satisfaction. However, Group C reported higher satisfaction and comfort (p < 0.001). Younger adults and women reported greater postoperative discomfort than older adults and men. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with simultaneous horizontal bone augmentation in esthetic areas shows a high willingness of patients to repeat the procedure in the short-, mid-, and long-term. Additionally, this therapeutic approach yields low rates of postoperative complications and discomfort, along with high patient satisfaction related to functional performance, esthetics, and overall comfort.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".