Evaluation of Different Methods of Indirect Sinus Floor Elevation for Elevation Heights of 10 mm: An Experimental Ex Vivo Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to macroscopically and microscopically evaluate different methods of indirect sinus floor elevation regarding elevation heights of 10 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different methods of indirect sinus floor elevation-osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE), bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation (BAOSFE), piezo- surgical sinus floor elevation (PSFE), and sinus floor elevation with an inflatable balloon, balloon-lift-control system (BLC) - were macroscopically and microscopically investigated ex vivo using 36 bisected pigs' heads. RESULTS: OSFE and BAOSFE perforated the Schneiderian membrane, whereas the inflatable balloon caused no laceration. PSFE elevated the mucosa without laceration as well, but was technically restricted to an elevation height of 5 mm. BAOSFE, PSFE, and BLC separated the mucosa, leaving the periosteum on the bone. OSFE completely lifted the soft tissue from the bone, including the periosteum. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that balloon elevation of the sinus floor may extend the indication for indirect sinus floor elevation for elevation heights of up to 10 mm. The histological elevation layer seems to be non-uniform in the different sinus floor elevation methods. Further in vivo experiments have to prove these findings as well as their relevance regarding the clinical outcome of sinus floor augmentation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".