Histologic Evaluation of a Stem Cell–Based Sinus‐Augmentation Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predictability has been demonstrated for the long-term success of dental implants placed simultaneously with or after a sinus-augmentation procedure. However, the time required to obtain optimal bone formation can be from 6 to 9 months or longer with grafting materials other than autogenous bone. For this reason, there is interest in a surgical technique that does not require the harvest of autogenous bone but still results in sufficient bone formation within a relatively short time frame. METHODS: The purpose of this case series was to evaluate the bone formation following sinus-augmentation procedures using an allograft cellular bone matrix containing native mesenchymal stem cells. Biopsy and histologic evaluation were performed after approximately 4 months of healing. RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis revealed an average vital bone content of 33% (range, 22% to 40%) and an average residual graft content of 6% (range, 3% to 7%) for the five cases reported that had an average healing period of 4.1 months (range, 3 to 4.75 months). CONCLUSION: The high percentage of vital bone content, after a relatively short healing phase, may encourage a more rapid initiation of implant placement or restoration when a cellular grafting approach is considered.
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 | 0.001 | 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".