A prospective randomized controlled trial of the two‐window technique without membrane versus the solo‐window technique with membrane over the osteotomy window for maxillary sinus augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maturation of the grafted volume after lateral sinus elevation is crucial for the long-term survival of dental implants. PURPOSE: To compare endo-sinus histomorphometric bone formation between the solo- and two-window maxillary sinus augmentation techniques with or without membrane coverage for the rehabilitation of multiple missing posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with severely atrophic posterior maxillae were randomized to receive lateral sinus floor elevation via the solo-window technique with membrane coverage (Control Group) or the two-window technique without coverage (Test Group). Six months after surgery, bone core specimens harvested from the lateral aspect were histomorphometrically analyzed. RESULTS: Ten patients in each group underwent 21 maxillary sinus augmentations. Histomorphometric analysis revealed mean newly formed bone values of 26.08 ± 16.23% and 27.14 ± 18.11%, mean connective tissue values of 59.34 ± 12.42% and 50.03 ± 17.13%, and mean residual graft material values of 14.6 ± 14.56% and 22.78 ± 10.83% in the Test and Control Groups, respectively, with no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The two-window technique obtained comparative maturation of the grafted volume even without membrane coverage, and is a viable alternative for the rehabilitation of severely atrophic posterior maxillae with multiple missing posterior teeth.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".