The Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid on Prefabricated <scp>CAD CAM</scp> Bone Blocks for Ridge Augmentation: A Split Mouth Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alveolar ridge augmentation has been one of the most accepted treatments for restoring bone volume. Various products are available in particle forms, which have limitations, especially related to controlling the expected volume gain. A prefabricated computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) allogenic bone block could provide a good alternative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial included 10 patients with the bilateral posterior atrophic mandible (20 sides), who were randomly assigned to two groups with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group I: the ridge was augmented using prefabricated CAD-CAM allogenic bone block hydrated using hyaluronic acid, and group II was hydrated using saline. Blinding was limited to the patients and the investigator responsible for data analysis (double blinding). Six months after grafting surgery, a core biopsy was taken for histological analysis, and implants were inserted into the augmented ridge. The amount of bone gain was evaluated radiographically using CBCT. RESULTS: All ridges in both groups revealed a successful bone gain in CBCT. However, the mean bone gain in group I (3.975 ± 0.31) was significantly higher than in group II (2.497 ± 0.66). Histologically, both groups showed osteointegration and new bone formation, with group I being superior. VEGF, OPN, and Cox 2 expressions were more intense in group I than in group II. The histomorphometric analysis revealed that group I had a considerably higher surface area of new bone formation than group II (p-value < 0.001). Immunohistochemical staining for VEGF revealed a significant difference between groups I (15.04 ± 0.47) and II (11.41 ± 0.54). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the addition of HA to prefabricated CAD-CAM allogenic block enhanced its osteogenic properties and guaranteed adequate integration of the graft for implant insertion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was not registered before the participants' recruitment and randomization (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06395818).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".