Local Sinus Lift for Single-Tooth Implant. I. Clinical and Radiographic Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For single-tooth implant replacement in the posterior maxilla, it is often necessary to do an augmentation of the alveolar process because of post-extraction resorption and include part of the maxillary sinus. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to present a technique for a local sinus lift with autogenous bone in a one-stage procedure. Additionally, volume changes of the grafted area were evaluated radiographically up to 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, 12 female and 8 males, were included in the study. Single-tooth replacement was made in the second premolar area in 7 cases and in the molar area in 13 cases. Local sinus lift and implant installation were made simultaneously. Abutment connection was made after 6 months of healing. RESULTS: Two years of clinical and radiographic follow-ups have been made in all patients. The survival rate was 100%. The residual bone volume in the actual area was 2-5 mm preoperatively, after sinus lifting in mean 13 mm, after 1 year in mean 11.4 mm, and 2 years postoperatively in mean 10.6 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Local sinus lift with simultaneous bone augmentation and single-tooth replacement in the posterior maxilla is a predictable method although a certain bone volume reduction around the implant was evident at the 2-year follow-up.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".