Follow‐Up of the Sinus Membrane Elevation Technique for Maxillary Sinus Implants without the Use of Graft Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a limited amount of studies evaluating long-term results of the sinus membrane elevation technique for bone formation around implants in the maxillary sinus floor without the use of bone graft material. PURPOSE: To investigate the long-term results of this technique with regard to implant survival and bone gain in the maxillary sinus floor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had undergone the surgical procedure from November 2001 to August 2008. Thirty-six patients with a total of 87 implants (ASTRA TECH Implant System™) in 53 sinuses were examined. After a submerged healing period of 6 months and at least 12 months of loading, the patients were examined clinically and radiologically. Implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 4.6 years (range 1.5-7 years). Five implants were lost giving a survival rate of 94.3%.Subantral preoperative vertical bone levels were in the range of 1 to 10 mm. The average bone gain at the sinus floor was 6 mm. The 55 fixtures eligible for RFA displayed a mean implant stability quotient of 77 (range 56-85.5). CONCLUSION: The present study illustrates the long-term reliability of the technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".