Transcrestal sinus floor augmentation with immediate implant placement applied in three types of fresh extraction sockets: A clinical prospective study with 1‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant insertion and transcrestal sinus augmentation both can provide a lot of advantages for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aims to verify the use of a modified technique for immediate implant insertion simultaneously with sinus augmentation in different types of sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were recruited for the clinical study and were divided into 3 groups according to the relationship of their maxillary molar roots and sinus floor: group 1 with none of the teeth roots contacts sinus floor; group 2 as at least 1 teeth root contacting sinus floor, but no root is observed penetrating into sinus cavity; group 3 with at least 1 teeth root penetrating into sinus cavity. Implants were inserted after transcrestal sinus floor augmentation and immediately after tooth extraction. The change of mucosa thickness, diagnosis of rhinosinusitis, marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket depth (PD), and sulcus bleeding index were examined through radiographic measurement or clinical monitoring. RESULT: During the study period, no implants failed. The relationship of the root of maxillary molars and sinus floor may have an effect on the bone height of the interradicular crest. Sinus mucosa was observed thicker after surgery. After healing period, sinus mucosa returned as thin as presurgery. At the time of 1-year follow-up, MBL was measured on X-ray (group 1: mesial: 0.63 ± 0.20 mm, distal: 0.70 ± 0.14 mm; group 2: mesial: 0.67 ± 0.21, distal: 0.65 ± 0.22 mm; group 3: mesial: 0.70 ± 0.15 mm, distal: 0.73 ± 0.19 mm). No statistical difference was found in MBL and PD as well as bleeding index among 3 groups. CONCLUSION: In consideration of the advantages of sinus floor augmentation and immediate implant placement, our clinical result confirms that it is promising to combine the 2 techniques for replacing maxillary molars especially when using residual roots as implant orientation and taking full advantage of the interradicular crest bone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".