MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Osteotome sinus elevation and simultaneous placement of porous‐surfaced dental implants: a morphometric study in rabbits

2005· article· en· W2157413054 on OpenAlexaff
M E Rahmani, Eiji Shimada, Shanin Rokni, Douglas Deporter, Albert O. Adegbembo, Nancy Valiquette, Robert M. Pilliar

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Implants Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteotomeOsseointegrationDentistryImplantSinus (botany)OsteotomyMedicineMaxillary sinusSinus liftDental implantMaxillaMaterials scienceSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to establish a model in rabbits in which to study the healing events associated with localized indirect osteotome-mediated maxillary sinus floor elevation in conjunction with simultaneous placement of sintered porous-surfaced dental implants. On one side of the maxilla of each of 28 rabbits, a sintered porous-surfaced titanium alloy press-fit implant was placed without the use of a bone graft material, while on the collateral side an implant was placed after first adding Bio-Oss graft particles to the osteotomy. Specimens were retrieved for morphometric assessment of bone contact and bone ingrowth of the porous implant surface after 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks of healing. All implants became osseointegrated by bone ingrowth into the porous implant surface. While the addition of graft particles did not result in a statistically significant increase in the parameters measured, a trend for greater bone contact and particularly bone ingrowth at the apices of the implants was seen as healing time increased. The rabbit maxillary sinus can be used to study healing following placement of sintered porous-surfaced dental implants using the indirect sinus elevation procedure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral Implants ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207