Sinus Floor Cortication: Classification and Prevalence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present a classification and assess the presence and degree of cortication of the sinus floor utilizing Computerized Tomography (CT) scan images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred CT scans, of patient who required a sinus augmentation procedure (SAP), were evaluated and classified according to the Type of sinus floor cortication (SFC). Type 1: sinus floor showing similar or higher density than the surrounding cortical areas. Type 2: sinus floor showing less density than the surrounding cortical areas. Type 3: sinus floor showing no cortical bone. Type 4: sinus floor showing the fusion of sinus floor bone and native crestal bone. RESULTS: The SFC were present in 31, 41, 18, and 10 cases in Type 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This classification based on the level of cortication of the sinus floor is clinically useful as a method of determining if the dental implant can be placed simultaneously or not with the SAP, or can be placed even without a SAP.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".