Comparative Evaluation of AmnioGuard and Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin When Combined With NovaBone Putty in the Regeneration of Human Periodontal Infrabony Defects: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periodontitis causes progressive attachment loss, which in turn causes tooth mobility and, ultimately, tooth loss. Regenerating and rebuilding the lost periodontal tissue is the goal of periodontal regenerative surgery. Regeneration using AmnioGuard, advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF), and NovaBone Putty has been demonstrated to be successful in increasing clinical attachment level and decreasing probing pocket depth. Objective: This study aims to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of AmnioGuard and A-PRF membrane in combination with NovaBone Putty in the regeneration of human periodontal infrabony defects. Methods: A total of 24 patients will be selected and divided into 2 groups: group A (n=12, 50%) and group B (n=12, 50%). Group A will receive treatment with NovaBone Putty and AmnioGuard, whereas group B will receive treatment with autologous A-PRF and NovaBone Putty. Plaque index, clinical attachment level, probing pocket depth, complete mouth bleeding score, and intraoral periapical radiographs will be statistically analyzed. Clinical and radiographic features will be evaluated before surgery and 6 months following the procedure. Results: Recruitment began on September 16, 2025, and is ongoing. As of manuscript submission, 4 participants have been enrolled. Results are expected to be published in 2027. All the clinical measurements will be recorded after 6 months. It can be anticipated that AmnioGuard membrane with NovaBone Putty will provide additional benefits in the management of chronic periodontitis by promoting better healing and clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Within the constraints of this study, the AmnioGuard membrane combined with NovaBone Putty may be more effective in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".