The Inlay Osteotome Sinus Augmentation Technique for Placing Short Implants Simultaneously with Reduced Crestal Bone Height. A Short‐Term Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To display an inlay technique of osteotome sinus floor elevation using a trephine combined with simultaneous short implant placement where the residual bone height (RBH) is less than 5 mm, as well as to evaluate the clinical effect in a prospective study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty short implants were installed in 32 patients in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla immediately after sinus floor elevation between January 2010 and October 2012. An inlay osteotome sinus augmentation technique using a trephine was applied in the operation. The mean residual bone height adjacent to or beneath the sinus was 3.34 mm, ranging from 0.96 mm to 4.96 mm. It was rarely necessary to add graft material from bovine sources in this therapy. With the purpose of bite training and soft tissue reforming, the temporary crowns were fixed after 6 months. The final prostheses were restored 3 months later. The stability and osseointegration of the implants were clinically evaluated, also the bone height gain around the implants was measured. RESULTS: The survival rate was 100% during the study period with this procedure. Each of the implants, loaded without pain or any subjective sensation, was clinically stable. No implants had detectable sinus membrane perforation during operation. The radiographic results demonstrated that the bone height gain was 5.38 mm after the surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on the results and within the limits of the present study, it can be suggested that short implant placement in conjunction with this inlay osteotome sinus augmentation technique could yield predictable clinical results for edentulous posterior maxillary region with RBH less than 5 mm. Besides, from the clinical point of view, these techniques may reduce the indication for complex invasive procedures and simplify treatment in the posterior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".