Sinus Floor Augmentation on at the Time of Maxillary Molar Extraction: Success and Failure Rates of 137 Implants in Function for Up to 3 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant restoration of the posterior maxilla poses significant challenges to the clinician. In an effort to increase the apical occlusal dimension of available bone for implant placement, a number of sinus augmentation approaches have been suggested. This paper describes a simplified technique for predictable sinus augmentation at the time of maxillary molar extraction. METHODS: A modified trephine and osteotome technique was utilized to implode the interradicular bone following maxillary molar extraction. Particulate material and a membrane were then placed to maximize regeneration of alveolar bone. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven (167) implants were subsequently placed in regenerated bone following the above technique. One hundred thirty-seven (137) of these implants were restored and in function for up to 3 years at the time of statistical compilation, and 136 of the 137 implants were functioning successfully by the Albrekteson criteria for a cumulative success rate of 97.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The technique presented for simultaneous sinus augmentation at the time of molar extraction, followed by subsequent implant placement after maturation of regenerating tissues, demonstrates a high success rate for up to 3 years in function. Long-term studies may be useful in evaluating the continual efficacy of such an approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".