A 5‐Year Prospective Follow‐Up Study of Implant‐Supported Fixed Prostheses in Patients Subjected to Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with an 80:20 Mixture of Bovine Hydroxyapatite and Autogenous Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective long-term follow-up studies evaluating the use of bone substitutes to enable dental implant placement and integration are rare. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the survival rate of dental implants placed 6 months after maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a mixture of 80% bovine hydroxyapatite (BH) and 20% autogenous bone (AB). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients subjected to 30 maxillary sinus floor grafting procedures using fibrin glue and an 80:20 mixture of BH and AB to enable placement of dental implants 6 months later were followed for 5 years of functional loading. Clinical and radiographic examinations of the grafts and implants were performed. RESULTS: After 5 years of functional loading with fixed bridges, 15 of 108 implants had been lost, giving a cumulative survival rate of 86%. The mean marginal bone loss after 5 years was 1.3 +/- 1.1 mm. CONCLUSION: Grafting of the maxillary sinus with a mixture of BH and AB and later placements of turned implants could be performed with predictable long-term results. All but one of the patients who were observed had functional fixed bridges after 5 years of functional loading.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".