Porous Titanium Granules Used as Osteoconductive Material for Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Clinical Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resorption of grafting material may lead to unpredictable long-term results when rehabilitating the resorbed posterior maxilla. Nonresorbable, osteoconductive bone substitutes may therefore be an advantage over autogenous bone grafts. PURPOSE: The aim of the present pilot study was to test titanium granules as bone substitute in patients planned for augmentation of the sinus floor prior to or in conjunction with placement of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with uni- or bilateral edentulism and need for augmentation of the sinus floor were included in the study. Residual bone height was 2 to 5 mm. Grafting and installation of the dental implants (18 fixtures) was carried out in the same session if primary stability of the implants could be achieved (12 patients). A staged protocol with implant placement 3 to 7 months after the augmentation procedure was used when primary implant stability was impossible to achieve (four patients). In all, 23 TiOblast (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) implants were installed. RESULTS: The patients have been followed 12 to 36 months after prosthetic loading. Three implants were found mobile and were removed (13.0%). Two of these were in patients where grafting and implant installation were carried out in separate procedures. The implants were found mobile at abutment connection and were removed. One patient in the single-stage group had a postoperative sinus infection, which was successfully treated with antibiotics. However, one out of two implants in this patient was found mobile and was removed after 1 year in function. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, titanium granules seem to function as augmentation material in the sinus floor. It is, however, not clear if the material can be safely used for two-stage procedures. Further investigations with longer healing time before implant installation are required. Also, the possible risk of granule displacement during preparation of the fixture site should be further investigated. Additionally, biopsies from patients are requested to confirm any bone ingrowth between the granules.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".