Histomorphometric Evaluation of Human Sinus Floor Augmentation Healing Responses to Placement of Calcium Phosphate or Ricinus communis Polymer Associated with Autogenous Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla with dental implants is often difficult because of proximity to the maxillary sinus and insufficient bone height. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures aim to obtain enough bone with an association between biomaterials and autogenous bone. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate histomorphometrically two grafting materials (calcium phosphate and Ricinus communis polymer) used in maxillary sinus floor augmentation associated with autogenous bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsies were taken from 10 consecutive subjects (mean age 45 years) 10 months after maxillary sinus floor augmentation. The sinus lift was performed with a mixture of autogenous bone and R. communis polymer or calcium phosphate in a 1:2 proportion. Routine histologic processing and staining with hematoxylin and eosin were performed. RESULTS: The histomorphometric analysis indicated satisfactory regenerative results in both groups for a mean of bone tissue in the grafted area (44.24 +/- 13.79% for the calcium phosphate group and 38.77 +/- 12.85% for the polymer group). Histologic evaluation revealed the presence of an inflammatory infiltrate of mononuclear prevalence that, on average, was nonsignificant. The histologic sections depicted mature bone with compact and cancellous areas in both groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that both graft materials associated with the autogenous bone were biocompatible, although both were still present after 10 months.
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) | 0.000 | 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".