RFA Values of Implants Placed in Sinus Grafted and Nongrafted Sites after 6 and 12 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery is widely used as a preimplantology method to permit implant insertion. Nevertheless, very few data are available about long-term stability of dental implants inserted in grafted sites. PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were to evaluate the evolution of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values at 6 and 12 months from the implant insertion in sinus grafted sites and nongrafted sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 14 patients, 80 Xive implants (Dentsply Friadent GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) were inserted. Sixty-three implants were inserted in a site previously treated with a sinus lift; 17 implants were inserted in healed or postextraction sites. For each implant diameter, length, bone density, insertion torque, and percentage of implant fixed to a nongrafted bone were recorded. RFA values at implant insertion after 6 and 12 months were recorded. RESULTS: After 6 and 12 months, grafted sites showed higher RFA values than the control sites; after 12 months, the difference was statistically significant (.007). A statistically significant positive correlation was found between resonance frequency values and bone quality after 12 months (.05). No statistically significant correlation between RFA values and all the other variables considered was found. CONCLUSIONS: Sites treated with sinus lift can offer good long-term stability. After 6 and 12 months, the geometric characteristics of the implant are no longer important to obtain high RFA values, and the bone-implant interface seems to be determinant.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".