Intraoperative Complications during Sinus Floor Elevation Using Two Different Ultrasonic Approaches: A Two‐Center, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of intraoperative complications during maxillary sinus elevation with lateral approach using a piezoelectric device with two different surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Antrostomies were randomly performed by outlining a window (group A, 36 patients) or by eroding the cortical wall with a grinding insert until the membrane was visible under a thin layer of bone, before outlining the window (group B, 36 patients). Occurrence of membrane perforation, laceration of vascular branches, and surgical time was recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent sinus floor elevation: four perforations (11.1%) were observed in group A (two occurred during elevation with hand instruments) and zero perforations in group B (p < .05). No evidence of vascular lacerations was registered in both groups. A clinically insignificant but statistically shorter surgical time was recorded in group A (9.2 ± 3.7 minutes) than in group B (13.3 ± 2.4 minutes; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that ultrasonic erosion of the lateral wall of the sinus is a more predictable technique than piezoelectric outlining of a bone window in preventing from accidental perforations of Schneiderian membrane during sinus augmentation procedures.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".