Clinical and Histologic Outcomes of Biologically Oriented Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Biologically oriented Alveolar Ridge Preservation (BARP) in minimizing post-extraction ridge modifications compared with unassisted socket healing. METHODS: A prospective controlled observational study was conducted involving 30 patients requiring single-rooted upper premolar extractions. Patients were divided into two groups: the test (15 patients), which underwent a ridge preservation procedure combining absorbable collagen sponge in the middle and apical third of the socket and collagenated xenogeneic bone substitute in the most coronal part (BARP), and the control (15 patients), which healed spontaneously. Soft tissue contour changes after 6 months were analyzed using digital impressions. Moreover, histomorphometric analysis of the regenerated tissue was performed in the test group. RESULTS: BARP significantly reduced post-extractive mucosal ridge modifications compared to the control group. Mean vertical shrinkage at the mid-buccal part of the edentulous site was 1.61 ± 0.61 mm (BARP) vs. 2.51 ± 0.64 mm (control; t-test, df = 28, p < 0.001), and mean horizontal reduction was 3.37 ± 0.63 mm (BARP) vs. 4.34 ± 0.48 mm (control; t-test, df = 28, p < 0.001). Histomorphometric analysis of the regenerated tissue showed 39.7% ± 9.1% newly formed bone with minimal residual graft material (5.0% ± 5.4%). CONCLUSION: BARP technique effectively minimizes post-extractive soft tissue contour modifications and supports natural bone regeneration, resulting in adequate bone dimensions for implant rehabilitation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".