The Feasibility of Flapless Approach to Sinus Augmentation Using an Implant Device Designed According to Residual Alveolar Ridge Height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic sinus lift and augmentation may be successfully performed using a dedicated implant device designed according to residual bone height (RBH). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a flapless surgical approach might negatively influence the outcome. A total of 40 consecutive patients (16 men and 24 women) were included in the study, 20 in each group (minimal flap/control versus flapless/study). Inclusion criteria were ≥ 3 mm RBH, ≥ 6 mm width of the residual alveolar ridge according to preoperative cone beam computerized tomography, and ≥ 8 mm buccopalatal keratinized gingiva for the flapless group. Primary outcome parameters included intraoperative membrane perforation. Secondary outcome parameters included postoperative infection, soft tissue healing, bone gain, and short-term dental implant survival. Mean RBH was 4.6 mm. No intraoperative membrane perforations and no postoperative infections were observed. Mean bone gain height was similar for both groups, at 11 mm. Soft tissue healing was observed within 2 months. In all cases, second-stage surgery allowed generation of at least 2 mm of keratinized gingiva buccally. All implants were osseointegrated at second-stage surgery. The use of a flapless approach to maxillary sinus augmentation using an implant device based on RBH yields predictable results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".