A Multi‐Center <scp>RCT</scp> Comparing Titanium‐Reinforced <scp>dPTFE</scp> Membrane to Collagen Membrane in Horizontal Bone Augmentation at Single Sites in the Anterior Maxilla: Clinical and Histological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare a dPTFE membrane to a collagen membrane in guided bone regeneration (GBR) for horizontal bone augmentation at single sites in the anterior maxilla in terms of alveolar width and bone quality, as clinically and histologically assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a class 4 defect (Benic and Hämmerle 2014) at a single site in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were recruited in five centers. Following flap elevation and conditioning of the recipient site, they were randomly allocated to the dPTFE membrane group or the collagen membrane group. All patients were treated with a 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone and DBBM. Nine months following bone augmentation, re-entry was performed, intra-surgical clinical measurements were registered, and core biopsies were obtained for histological analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were randomized (dPTFE membrane group: 8 females, 10 males, mean age 39; collagen membrane group: 14 females, 4 males, mean age 51) and all but one underwent re-entry. GBR was effective in both groups (p < 0.001) yet followed a different pattern over time (p = 0.010) with a higher postoperative alveolar width in the collagen membrane group followed by more graft resorption. At re-entry, the estimated marginal mean alveolar width was 7.0 mm in the dPTFE membrane group and 6.5 mm in the collagen membrane group at re-entry, without statistically significant differences between the groups (p = 0.326). However, infection occurred in 6/18 patients treated with a dPTFE membrane group versus in none treated with a collagen membrane. Clinical assessment at re-entry identified fibrous tissue at the buccal aspect in 7/18 (39%) patients treated with a dPTFE membrane and in 8/17 (47%) patients treated with a collagen membrane, without statistically significant differences between the groups (p = 0.738). Histomorphometric analyses showed newly formed bone in both groups (> 30%) and a minimal amount of DBBM particles (~5%), mostly being in intimate contact with surrounding newly formed bone (~70%). The non-mineralized tissue fraction was 5% higher in the dPTFE membrane group (p = 0.020). There were no significant differences between the groups for other histological outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Alveolar width enabled implant installation at 9 months in both groups, yet dPTFE membrane was prone to infection. In both groups, fibrous tissue at the buccal aspect was common and newly formed bone was consistently observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05426616.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".