A Retrospective Study of Complications Associated with 100 Consecutive Maxillary Sinus Augmentations via the Lateral Window Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the complications encountered during 100 consecutive maxillary sinus augmentations via the lateral window approach and to propose solutions to manage these complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment residual bone heights and the presence of septa were recorded. The incidences of any intraoperative or postoperative sinus complications such as excessive bleeding, membrane perforation, infection, wound dehiscence, sinusitis, loss of bone graft, and implant success were reported. results: This study evaluated 42 men and 44 women requiring 100 consecutive sinus elevation procedures between March 2008 and February 2011. Five intraoperative membrane perforations were noted, and one subsequently developed an active infection (2 weeks after surgery). Eight instances of suppuration were noted, while 10 sites presented with wound dehiscence 1 to 2 weeks after surgery. One example of partial loss of the bone graft 6 months after surgery was identified. Of a total of 151 implants placed in 97 sinuses (one patient with bilateral sinuses and one with unilateral sinus did not complete implant placement), 2 implants presented excessive bone loss prior to uncovering. One implant was removed and one was left submerged. conclusions: Sinus floor elevation utilizing the lateral window approach is a predictable approach to manage bone volume deficiency in the posterior maxilla for patients seeking dental implant-based treatment. However, complications may include membrane tear, infection, wound dehiscence, loss of graft, and implant failure. It is vital for the clinician to understand how to recognize and solve these complications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".