Healing at mandibular block-grafted sites. An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate the healing of autologous bone block grafts or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) block grafts applied concomitantly with collagen membranes for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS In six Labrador dogs, molars were extracted bilaterally, the buccal bony wall was removed, and a buccal box-shaped defect created. After 3 months, a bony block graft was harvested from the right ascending ramus of the mandible and reduced to a standardized size. A DBBM block was tailored to similar dimensions. The two blocks were secured with screws onto the buccal wall of the defects in the right and left sides of the mandible, respectively. Resorbable membranes were applied at both sides, and the flaps sutured. After 3 months, one implant was installed in each side of the mandible, in the interface between grafts and parent bone. After 3 months, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared to reveal a 6-month healing period of the grafts. RESULTS 77 ± 6.2% and 5.9 ± 7.5% of vital mineralized bone were found at the autologous bone and DBBM block graft sites, respectively. Moreover, at the DBBM site, 63 ± 11.7% of connective tissue and 31 ± 15.5% of DBBM occupied the area analyzed. Only 0.2 ± 0.4% of DBBM was found in contact with newly formed bone. The horizontal loss was in a mean range of 0.9-1.8 mm, and 0.3-0.8 mm, at the autologous bone and DBBM block graft sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Autologous bone grafts were vital and integrated to the parent bone after 6 months of healing. In contrast, DBBM grafts were embedded into connective tissue, and only a limited amount of bone was found inside the scaffold of the biomaterial.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".