The Buccofacial Wall of Maxillary Sinus: An Anatomical Consideration for Sinus Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify the thickness of the buccofacial wall of the maxillary sinus where sinus augmentations are often performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen sites located 15 and 20 mm superior to the anatomical cervical line (named as groups H15 and H20, respectively) and along the long axes of the mid and the interproximal of two premolars and two molars were measured from 74 Korean hemiface cadavers. RESULTS: The buccofacial wall of the maxillary sinus was thinnest at the area between the maxillary second premolar and first molar in groups H15 and H20. The lowest mean thickness was 1.2 mm in both groups. The walls were thicker in males than in females, with statistically significant gender differences found at four and two sites on the anterior horizontal reference in groups H15 and H20, respectively. However, the thickness did not differ significantly with age or laterality. Incomplete septa were found in seven of the 74 specimens, and they were present in the area between the first and second molars in six (86%) of these cases. CONCLUSIONS: These observations indicate that anatomical characteristics of the buccofacial wall thickness of the maxillary sinus need to be considered when performing a window opening procedure for sinus 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".