Short Implants Placed with or without Grafting in Atrophic Sinuses: The 3‐Year Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The question whether a minimal maxillary residual bone height (RBH) allows the predictable use of osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) remains unresolved. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of short implants placed with OSFE in an RBH of ≤4 mm and to compare bone levels around implants placed with (control) or without (test) grafting after 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight-millimeter implants were placed by OSFE in sinuses randomized to receive anorganic bovine bone or no grafting material. Healing time before prosthetic rehabilitation was 10 weeks. Peri-implant bone levels were measured on standardized periapical radiographs. RESULTS: Thirty-seven implants (17 test, 20 control) were placed at a mean RBH of 2.4 ± 0.9 mm. Three implants failed during the 3-year follow-up. After 3 years, all implants had gained endosinus bone (test: 4.1 ± 1.0 mm; control: 5.1 ± 1.2 mm; p = .001). Mean bone gain was stable between 1 and 3 years in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Grafting is unnecessary to achieve bone augmentation of 4.1 mm; however, more bone is gained with grafting. Bone gained over 1 year was retained. Atrophic posterior maxillae can be predictably rehabilitated using OSFE and simultaneous placement of 8-mm implants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".