MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408377408 · doi:10.1111/cid.70011

Moldable and Particulate Bone Material in Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4408377408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiseul Choi, Jieun Cheong, Yoolbin Song, Jaeyeon Kim, Dae‐Young Kang, Sang‐Hoon Park, Marco Esposito, Hyun‐Seung Shin, Wonse Park

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedPark
KeywordsMedicineAlveolar ridgeDentistryAlveolar crestDental alveolusCrestRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalAlveolar processNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicineImplant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine possible histological and radiological differences in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), using moldable bone versus particulate bone. METHODS: After tooth extraction, 39 patients (40 teeth) were randomized (1:1) to receive ARP using moldable bone materials (SBX group) or particulate bone materials (PBX group). An absorbable collagen membrane was placed over the graft material and the surgical site was sutured. Cone-beam computed tomography was taken immediately and 5 months after ARP. Bone core samples from the implantation site were obtained for histomorphometric analysis 5 months after ARP. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were screened and 39 of them completed the study. However, one patient who received split-mouth treatment was excluded, resulting in data from 38 patients being analyzed. In radiological evaluation, the changes in midbuccal alveolar bone height at 5 months were -0.753 ± 0.112 and -1.018 ± 0.111 mm in the SBX group and PBX groups, respectively (F = 2.895; p = 0.098; mean difference [MD] 0.265; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.051 to 0.582). Changes in the horizontal ridge width were measured at three levels (-1, -3, and -5 mm) below the most coronal aspect of the crest and showed a decrease in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups. The percent new bone area of the SBX group (39.156 ± 2.505) was significantly different from that of the PBX group (22.749 ± 2.476) (F = 22.171; p < 0.001; 95% MD 16.407; CI = 9.333 to 23.481). The percent residual material area was significantly lower in the SBX group (8.973 ± 2.211) compared to the PBX group (15.633 ± 2.186), with an F-statistic of 4.687 and p-value = 0.037 (MD -6.660; 95% CI = -12.904 to -0.415). The percent connective tissue area was 49.743 ± 4.199 and 56.657 ± 4.151 for the groups (F = 1.401; p = 0.245; MD -6.914; 95% CI = -18.773 to 4.944), respectively. CONCLUSION: Radiological and histological results showed that use of moldable bone can achieve similar ARP parameters as those achieved by particulate bone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service No. KCT0009560. This randomized clinical trial was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization. (Date of registration: 21/06/2024. https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=27272&searchpage=L).

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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