Maxillary Sinus‐Floor Elevation with Nanoporous Biphasic Bone Graft Material for Early Implant Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient bone height in the posterior maxilla is caused by bone atrophy after tooth extraction and continued pneumatization of the maxillary sinus. To allow for implant placement in this area, external sinus-floor elevations are performed. For this indication, the application of various bone graft materials can be a reliable alternative to autologous bone. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze a nanoporous bone graft material under the condition of early implant treatment in sinus floor elevations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients received 94 individual external sinus-floor elevations as a precondition for implant surgery. As grafting material, a synthetic, nanoporous bone graft material consisting of a mixture of nano-hydroxyapatite and nano-β-tricalciumphosphate crystals, combined with blood from the defect side, was used. Depending on the remaining vertical bone height, implant placement was performed either simultaneously with bone augmentation or consecutively in a delayed approach. After a 4-month healing period, the patients received 218 implants and were followed up clinically, radiographically, and histologically. To quantify the bone situation at implant placement, immunohistochemical analysis using tenascin-C was performed. RESULTS: We achieved an average vertical bone increase of 8.28 mm (SD, 2.59) for the one-stage approach and 10.99 mm (SD, 1.73) for the two-stage approach after sinus-floor elevation. The augmented areas showed mean resorption rates of 10.32% (one stage) and 10.82% (two stages) of vertical graft during the observation period. Immunohistochemical analysis after 4 months of healing showed high tenascin activity, indicating bone growth. Good primary stability was achieved during implant placement. Mean peri-implant marginal bone loss was 0.45 mm (SD, 0.31). CONCLUSION: After a mean observation time of 21.45 months, the biomaterial showed good osseointegration and bone stability radiographically. Adding to this the positive histological and immunohistochemical findings, we conclude that, after a relatively short 4-month healing period, the biomaterial showed predictable results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".