Clinical Investigation and Patient Satisfaction of Short Implants Versus Longer Implants with Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation in Atrophic Posterior Maxillae: A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical parameters and patient satisfaction of the treatments with short implants compared to longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The patient data were retrieved from an ongoing randomized controlled trial (NCT02350075). Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (group1: short-6 mm implant, group 2: short-8-mm implant with OSFE, group 3: standard-10 mm implant with OSFE). Early implant failure, complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ) and patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated. ANOVA analysis was performed for the data comparison. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled in the present study. No implant loss was found by the end of the restoration placement. No significant difference of ISQ values was found among three groups at the time of implant surgery and impression taking (p = .67 and.54, respectively). VAS values regarding intraoperative vibratory sense in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 3 (p = .01). CONCLUSION: All three treatments were safe in atrophic posterior maxilla (6 mm ≤ residual bone height < 8 mm). Patients were satisfied with all three treatments, while the malleting during the osteotome procedure could make patients feel uncomfortable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".