Sinus Floor Augmentation Using <scp>S</scp>traumann® <scp>B</scp>one<scp>C</scp>eramic™ and <scp>B</scp>io‐<scp>O</scp>ss® in a Split Mouth Design and Later Placement of Implants: A 5‐Year Report from a Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Straumann® BoneCeramic™ is a synthetic biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) aimed for sinus floor augmentation. Long-term follow-up of implants placed in BCP after sinus augmentation is still missing. PURPOSE: The primary aim of the study was to compare survival rates and marginal bone loss of Straumann SLActive implants placed in either BCP (test) or Bio-Oss® (DBB) (control) after sinus floor augmentation. The secondary aim was to calculate graft sinus height at different time points. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral sinus floor augmentation was performed in a split mouth model. Eleven patients (mean age 67 years) received 100% BCP on one side and 100% DBB on the contralateral side. After 8 months of graft healing, 62 Straumann SLActive implants were placed. After 5 years of functional loading (6 years after augmentation) of implants, marginal bone levels and grafted sinus height were measured, and implant survival and success rates were calculated. RESULTS: After 5 years of loading, all prosthetic constructions were in function although two implants were lost in each grafting material. The overall implant survival rate was 93.5% (91.7% for BCP, 91.3% for DBB, and 100% for residual bone). The success rates were 83.3% and 91.3% for BCP and DBB, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mean marginal bone level after 5 years between BCP (1.4 ± 1.2 mm) and DBB (1.0 ± 0.7 mm). Graft height reduction (GHR) after 6 years was limited to 6.6% for BCP and 5.8% for DBB. CONCLUSION: In this limited RCT study, the choice of biomaterial used for sinus floor augmentation did not seem to have any impact on survival rates and marginal bone level of the placed implants after 5 years of functional loading and GHR was minimal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".