Immediate Fixed Implant Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla after Bilateral Sinus Floor Augmentation: A 12‐Month Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES: The aims of this study were to evaluate a surgical/prosthetic protocol for the immediate rehabilitation of the augmented edentulous maxilla, and to compare the outcomes of implants placed in grafted (test group) versus native (control group) sites in the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were included in the study. Each patient was treated with a bilateral sinus augmentation procedure using a 50:50 composite graft of autogenous mandibular bone and bovine hydroxyapatite. Four to 5 months later, 155 implants (90 test and 65 control) were placed and restored with screw-retained fixed definitive prostheses supported by titanium frameworks within 1 week. All patients were followed for 1 year. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements and radiographic evaluation of the marginal bone resorption (MBR) were performed. RESULTS: Two test implants failed in two patients, giving a cumulative 1-year success rate of 98.7%; the prostheses success rate was 100%. Insertion torque and ISQ values for test implants were significantly lower than those for control implants (unpaired t-test, p < .0001). The mean MBR around control and test implants at the 1-year evaluation were similar (0.47 ± 0.25 mm and 0.43 ± 0.21 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of implants placed in sinus-grafted and native sites can be immediately loaded with a fixed full-arch prosthesis and yield short-term successful outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".