Long‐term changes in graft height after maxillary sinus augmentation, onlay bone grafting, and combination of both techniques: a long‐term retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This investigation focused on long-term changes in graft height, implant survival rate, and peri-implant tissue conditions of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges after augmentation procedures with a follow-up of 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with prospective long-term follow-up of 25 patients with edentulous severe atrophic maxillary situations who received a vertical augmentation procedure with autologous bone prior to implant placement. The participants were divided into three groups according to whether they underwent sinus elevation, onlay grafting, or a combination of both techniques. After a four-month healing period, 127 implants were inserted in the corresponding regions. Following a six-month healing period, the participants underwent prosthodontic rehabilitation, incorporating a fixed or removable implant denture. The cohort was clinically and radiographically followed up 1, 5, and 10 years after augmentation. The following parameters were measured: radiographic vertical bone changes, implant loss, peri-implant pocket depth (PD), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR), and the radiographic distance between the implant shoulder and the first visible bone-to-implant contact (DIB). RESULTS: Seven implants were lost during the observation period, resulting in a cumulative 10-year survival rate of 94.48%. Significant bone loss occurred during the first 12 months, after which the resorption slowed down and bone height eventually stabilized. After 10 years, the total vertical bone loss was 27.51% after onlay grafting, 28.14% after sinus elevation, and 30.24% in the combination group, with no statistically significant between-group differences. Peri-implant follow-up examinations revealed a positive correlation between SFFR and PD, respectively, DIB, and a negative correlation between SFFR and KM. CONCLUSION: The treatment method does not seem to impact vertical bone loss following augmentation using autologous grafts. This approach results in long-term stability of dental implants. A sufficient width of keratinized peri-implant mucosa is important to prevent peri-implant bone loss and inflammation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".