Membranes over the lateral window in sinus augmentation procedures: a two‐arm and split‐mouth randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether or not, among other factors, membrane-coverage of antrostomy defects improves implant survival in sinus augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a two-arm and split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial on 104 and 5 patients respectively. In the two-arm study, antrostomy defects were membrane-covered in 66 procedures and uncovered in 69, before placing a total of 265 implants that were followed up for 1 year. In the split-mouth study, following bilateral sinus augmentation, antrostomy defects were membrane-covered on one side and left uncovered on the contra-lateral. Bone biopsies from each sinus were histologically analysed 6 months later. RESULTS: In the two-arm study, implant survival rates were similar (p = 0.08) in the membrane-covered (96.1%) and uncovered (94.2%) groups. In the split-mouth study, bone augmentation was similar in both groups (p = 0.52). Delayed implant placement (p = 0.04), thick Schneider's membrane (≥2 mm) (p < 0.01), treatment for hypertension (p = 0.04) and non-smoking (p = 0.01) seemed to be associated with lower risk of implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival in sinus lifting procedures could be influenced significantly by timing of implant placement, Schneider's membrane thickness, antihypertensive treatment and smoking habits, but not by antrostomy membrane coverage.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".