Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Water Lift System in the Sinus Membrane‐Lifting Operation as a Sinus Surgical Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a Water Lift System in the sinus membrane-lifting operation was examined. This investigation focused on the capability of this equipment to reduce the risk of Schneiderian membrane perforation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A preliminary clinical study on the use of the Water Lift System in sinus membrane elevation to place implants through the sinus floor was conducted. A total of 70 sinus membrane-lifting operations were performed on patients with various bone heights ranging from 1.2 to 9.9 mm (most commonly in the range of 4-6 mm) through the lateral approach (four cases) or the crestal approach (66 cases). RESULTS: In all of the cases performed using the lateral approach, sinus membrane perforation did not occur. In the 66 cases performed using the crestal approach, Schneiderian membrane tearing occurred in two cases. The membrane tearing occurred during elevation of the Schneiderian membrane but not when a hole was drilled to access the Schneiderian membrane. One case of membrane tearing resulted from previous inflammation in the maxillary sinus, and the other case of membrane tearing was caused by application of excessive hydraulic pressure. In addition, similar outcomes were obtained and no microbial infections were observed in a total of 68 successful cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Water Lift System was confirmed to effectively reduce the risk of Schneiderian membrane perforation during the sinus membrane-lifting operation. We conclude that the Water Lift System deserves to be considered as a sinus surgical instrument, which ensures safety in the sinus membrane-lifting operation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".