Simultaneous Sinus Lift and Implant Installation: Prospective Study of Consecutive Two Hundred Seventeen Sinus Lift and Four Hundred Sixty‐Two Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: If less than 4 mm of residual bone is remained in posterior maxilla, two-stage operation is recommended for implant installation. However, if primary stability could be obtained using tapered designed implants, one-stage surgery could be performed with reliable success rate in severely resorbed maxilla. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate survival and success rates of the implants simultaneously placed into grafted sinus using rough-surfaced implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of two hundred seventeen consecutive sinus lifting through lateral approach and four hundred sixty-two simultaneous implants were installed from November 2003 for 5.5 years. Xenogenic bone was used solely for bone graft materials. Second surgery was performed around 6 months after operation and porcelain fused metal or gold crown was used for definitive restorations. Cumulative survival and success rates were evaluated according to residual alveolar bone height (RABH), smoking status, and Schneiderian membrane perforation. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 57.1 ± 15.6 (36-98) months. Of the four hundred sixty-two implants, two hundred sixty-two implants (56.7%: group 1) were installed in posterior maxilla less than 4-mm RABH and two hundred implants (43.3%: group 2) were placed in over 5-mm RABH. The cumulative survival and success rates were 98.91% and 96.54%. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate between group 1 and group 2 (p = .3135). Perforation of the membrane was not related to success (p = .7162), but smoking status is significantly related with implant failure (p = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement could be used to treat atrophic maxilla in patients with minimal RABH when initial stability could be obtained by using taper designed implants with surgical techniques. Smoking is a possible factor for implant failure. Membrane perforation did not have an adverse effect on implant success if the membrane was repaired with absorbable membrane and fibrin glue.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".