Membrane Perforation in Sinus Floor Elevation – Piezoelectric Device versus Conventional Rotary Instruments for Osteotomy: An Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sinus membrane perforation is the most common intraoperative complication of maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) procedures and frequently causes postoperative problems. Piezoelectric devices have been claimed to reduce the frequency of membrane perforations although no clear evidence supports this view. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten surgeons with different expertise levels performed 80 MSFEs in selected lamb heads, with rotary and piezoelectric instruments following standard protocols. After the procedures, specimens were coded and perforations or tears determined through a microscope. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of thickness either of the sinus lateral wall (xi -xj = 73.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.3-191.8) or the membrane (xi -xj = 24.2; 95% CI = -29.4 to 77.9) were identified between the specimens allocated to each group. Nine membrane perforations (11.2%) occurred during the study, all within the lower expertise group. Membrane elevation by hand instruments caused five perforations (40%) in the rotary instrument group and one in the piezoelectric group. Expert surgeons produced no membrane perforations, the size of the antrostomy that was smaller in the piezoelectric group being the only significant difference between the rotary and piezoelectric groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of piezoelectric material for MSFE reduces the frequency of membrane perforation among surgeons with a limited experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".