Assessment of the effectiveness of platelet rich fibrin in the treatment of Schneiderian membrane perforation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of Platelet rich fibrin (PRF) treatment of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on bone formation and new vascular supply and the success of dental implant survival rate. METHODS: The dataset for this retrospective study consists of patients who received sinus augmentation using the lateral wall technique. A total of 16 patients (20 sinuses) the patients without sinus membrane perforation (10 maxiller sinus area with sinus floor augmentation) and with Schneiderian perforation (10 maxiller sinus area repairing with PRF and augmented sinus floor area) were included in this study. The bone height was measured by comparing the preoperative and postoperative dental CBCT scans. Histological sections were evaluated for possible vasculogenesis augmented sinuses area. RESULTS: In both groups, it was observed that the possible vasculogenesis augmented sinuses area increased. Implant survival rates in both groups found that one hundred percent and any bone loss around implants were not observed. An apparent increase in alveolar bone height was observed and measured in CBCT scans. CONCLUSIONS: PRF can be considered as an alternative material for repairing sinus perforations because it is fully autogenous and easy manipulated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".