Nasal Floor Elevation Combined with Dental Implant Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to report on the survival of dental implants placed in conjunction with nasal floor elevation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 32 consecutive patients from two private practices was evaluated. All patients presented with alveolar bone height deficiency in the anterior region, which was not sufficient to place a dental implant according to a computed tomography (CT) scan preformed prior to implantation. Elevation and augmentation of the nasal mucosa was performed simultaneously with dental implant placement. Data collection included demographic information, as well as records of the pre-operative available bone height, implant dimensions, bone addition following nasal floor augmentation, and survival of the implants at last follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients received 100 implants that were performed in conjunction with nasal floor elevation. The average pre-operative available bone height according to a CT scan that was preformed prior to implantation was 9.1 ± 0.9 mm and ranged from 7.3 to 11.2 mm. Bone addition following nasal floor augmentation was 3.4 ± 0.9 mm and ranged between 1.1 and 5.7 mm. The mean follow-up time was 27.8 ± 12.4 months, and during that follow-up period, no implant failure was recorded, resulting in 100% implant survival. CONCLUSION: Nasal floor elevation might serve as a predictable procedure, which allows implant placement in areas with significant atrophy together with increased implant stability due to the bicortical support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".