Tilted Implants as an Alternative to Maxillary Sinus Grafting: A Clinical, Radiologic, and Periotest Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to mechanical and anatomic difficulties, implant treatment in the atrophic maxilla represents a challenge. The maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure is still not universally accepted because of its complexity and its unpredictability. PURPOSE: In this study, a combination of tilted and axial implants was used in patients with severely resorbed posterior maxillae as an alternative to sinus grafting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were rehabilitated with 29 fixed partial prostheses supported by 101 Brånemark System implants. Fifty-nine implants were installed in an axial and 42 in a tilted direction. The average follow-up period was 37 months (range: 21-87 mo post loading). RESULTS: After 5 years, the implant cumulative success rate was 95.2% (survival: rate 100%) for the tilted implants and 91.3% (survival rate: 96.5%) for the axial implants, and the prosthesis survival rate was 100%. At the fifth year, the average marginal bone loss was 1.21 mm for the tilted implants and 0.92 mm for the axial ones. The mean Periotest values (PTV) at loading time were -2.62 and -3.57, and after 5 years the PTVs were -4.73 and -5.00 for the tilted and the axial implants, respectively. During the follow-up, all prostheses but two were mechanically stable, retightening of 18 abutment screws and of 5 gold screws in 14 prostheses was done, and fracture of two abutment screws and two occlusal surfaces was experienced. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the use of tilted implants is an effective and safe alternative to maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".