Radiographic Analysis of the Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation: Short‐Term Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are some limitations for implant placement in the posterior maxilla when there is an extended sinus. Various techniques for sinus floor elevation allow an increase in implant length. PURPOSE: The aim of the present radiographic study was to assess the augmented site in the sinus around implants that were installed by means of an osteotome-mediated transcrestal sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients with 44 implants were available. In 39% of the implants the sinus floor elevation was performed exclusively with bone chips. Bone fill material (Bio-Oss, Geistlich Söhne AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) was additionally used to increase the volume and stability of the lifted area at 61% of the implants. The visibility and morphology of the augmentation were assessed and compared by means of intraoral radiography (long-cone technique). RESULTS: All implants were stable and were considered to be successful when they were reexamined in the context of the present study. The mean residual bone height was 5.78 +/- 1.4 mm. The increase of the implant length as compared to the original bone height resulted in a mean value of 3.87 +/- 2.0 mm. The volume and density of the lifted area were more visible if Bio-Oss was added. A shrinkage and/or condensation of the grafted material was visible at 37% of the implants after a minimum loaded period of 200 days. Equally, a decreased visibility of the original sinus floor was noted at 61% of implants. The formation of a cortical bone layer at the apex of the implants was detected at 35% of implants. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical procedure appears to be a safe method with rare complications. Radiographic assessment of the augmentation procedure proved to be difficult, and measurements are not fully reliable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".