Histological Outcomes on the Development of New Space-making Devices for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have pointed out that the mere elevation of the maxillary sinus membrane promotes bone formation without the use of augmentation materials. PURPOSE: This experimental study aimed at evaluating if the two-stage procedure for sinus floor augmentation could benefit from the use of a space-making device in order to increase the bone volume to enable later implant installation with good primary stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six male tufted capuchin primates (Cebus apella) were subjected to extraction of the three premolars and the first molar on both sides of the maxilla to create an edentulous area. The sinuses were opened using the lateral bone-wall window technique, and the membrane was elevated. One resorbable space-making device was inserted in each maxillary sinus, and the bone window was returned in place. The animals were euthanatized after 6 months, and biopsy blocks containing the whole maxillary sinus and surrounding soft tissues were prepared for ground sections. RESULTS: The histological examination of the specimens showed bone formation in contact with both the schneiderian membrane and the device in most cases even when the device was displaced. The process of bone formation indicates that this technique is potentially useful for two-stage sinus floor augmentation. The lack of stabilization of the device within the sinus demands further improvement of space-makers for predictable bone augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that (1) the device used in this study did not trigger any important inflammatory reaction; (2) when the sinus membrane was elevated, bone formation was a constant finding; and (3) an ideal space-making device should be stable and elevate the membrane to ensure a maintained connection between the membrane and the secluded space.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".