Maxillary Sinus Augmentation in Humans Using Cortical Porcine Bone: A Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation After 4 and 6 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone substitutes, such as allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts, have been proposed in several augmentation procedures. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of specimens retrieved 4 or 6 months after sinus augmentation using cortical porcine bone augmentation material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 77 specimens, retrieved after 4 and 6 months from augmented sinuses, were used in this study. The specimens were processed to be observed under light microscopy. Histomorphometric measurements were presented as means ± standard deviations. RESULTS: Most of the particles were surrounded by newly formed bone with large osteocyte lacunae. Histomorphometry showed that, after 4 months, the newly formed bone represented 28%, marrow spaces 36%, the residual graft material 37%, while, after 6 months, the newly formed bone represented 31%, marrow spaces 34%, while the residual graft material was 37%. CONCLUSION: The present results show that cortical porcine bone is a biocompatible, osteoconductive biomaterial that can be used for maxillary sinus augmentation procedures without interfering with the normal reparative bone processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".