Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation without Grafting: A 10‐Year Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term outcome of implants placed in the atrophic maxilla using osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) without grafting. PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate the long-term efficiency of the procedure and stability of the peri-implant bone formed following implant placement without grafting into resorbed posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five implants (≤10 mm in length) were placed in 17 patients using OSFE without grafting. The mean residual bone height was 5.4 ± 2.3 mm. Bone levels were evaluated at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years using periapical radiographs. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (23 implants) participated in the 10-year examination. All implants fulfilled the survival criteria. Following surgery, the implant sites gained endo-sinus bone (mean: 3.0 ± 1.4 mm). The mean crestal bone loss (CBL) was limited to 1.0 ± 0.9 mm. The difference in mean endo-sinus bone gain and CBL was statistically significant between 1 and 10 years, but not between 3 and 5, 3 and 10, and 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, the implant survival rate was 100%. Endo-sinus bone was mainly gained during the first year. This study demonstrates the long-term predictability of OSFE without grafting and simultaneous implant placement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".