Flap vs. "flapless" surgical approach at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the remodeling of the alveolar process at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets by applying a flap or a "flapless" surgical approach in a dog model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implants were installed immediately into the distal alveoli of the second mandibular premolars of six Labrador dogs. In one side of the mandible, a full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated (control site), while contra-laterally, the mucosa was gently dislocated, but not elevated (test site) to disclose the alveolar crest. After 4 months of healing, the animals were sacrificed, ground sections were obtained and a histomorphometric analysis was performed. RESULTS: After 4 months of healing, all implants were integrated (n=6). Both at the test and at the control sites, bone resorption occurred with similar outcomes. The buccal bony crest resorption was 1.7 and 1.5 mm at the control and the test sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: "Flapless" implant placement into extraction sockets did not result in the prevention of alveolar bone resorption and did not affect the dimensional changes of the alveolar process following tooth extraction when compared with the usual placement of implants raising mucoperiosteal flaps.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".