Long-term outcomes of post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation and alveolar ridge reconstruction followed by delayed implant placement: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review analyzed the long-term outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and alveolar ridge reconstruction (ARR) before delayed implant placement. Eight studies were included (one non-randomized clinical trial, one prospective case series, four retrospective comparative studies, and two retrospective case series). Risk of bias assessment, using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, revealed one high-quality study, four medium-quality studies, and three with low methodological quality. In total, 333 patients underwent ARP or ARR, with the most common approach involving xenogeneic bone grafting and socket sealing with a collagen membrane, matrix, or dressing. Follow-up ranged from 5 to 10 years. Due to methodological heterogeneity and limited data, quantitative analysis was not feasible. The implant survival rate was the most frequently reported outcome, followed by peri-implant marginal bone level changes and peri-implant disease incidence. Despite limited evidence, ARP and ARR appear to support favorable long-term outcomes, particularly in implant survival and bone stability. Further well-designed, large-scale studies comparing different ARP and ARR modalities with other therapies are needed to guide clinical decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".