Ramus or Chin Grafts for Maxillary Sinus Inlay and Local Onlay Augmentation: Comparison of Donor Site Morbidity and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The placement of endosseous implants in edentulous areas is frequently limited by inadequate bone volume of the residual ridge. Local bone grafts from the mandible are a convenient source of autogenous bone for alveolar reconstruction prior to implant placement. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to document and compare the morbidity and the frequency of complications occurring at two intraoral donor sites: the mandibular symphysis and the mandibular ramus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study reviewed 53 consecutively treated patients: 29 with autogenous bone grafts from the mandibular symphysis and 24 with mandibular ramus bone grafts. Each patient received a questionnaire 18 months after surgery regarding problems that may have occurred during the postoperative period. RESULTS: In the patients in whom bone was harvested from the mandibular ramus, there were fewer postoperative symptoms immediately after the operation than with mandibular symphysis harvesting. Twenty-two of the 29 patients with symphysis grafts experienced decreased sensitivity in the skin innervated by the mental nerve 1 month after the operation. Five of the 24 patients with ramus grafts experienced decreased sensitivity in the vestibular mucosa corresponding to the innervation of the buccal nerve. Eighteen months after the surgery, 15 of the 29 patients in the symphysis group still had some decreased sensitivity and presented with permanent altered sensation. Only one of the patients grafted from the mandibular ramus presented with permanent altered sensation in the posterior vestibular area. No major complication occurred in the donor sites in any of the 53 patients. CONCLUSION: The results of this study favored the use of the ascending mandibular ramus as an intraoral donor site for bone grafting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".