Endo‐sinus bone formation after transalveolar sinus floor elevation without grafting with simultaneous implant placement: Histological and histomorphometric assessment in a dog model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate endo-sinus new bone formation and implant osseointegration after transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and simultaneous implant placement without any grafting materials and to investigate the influence of implant surface modification on bone healing process under this circumstance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transalveolar sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implant placement were conducted bilaterally on 12 Labrador dogs. No grafting materials were used during surgery. Implants with two different surfaces (SLA and SLActive) were placed in a split-mouth design. The animals were sacrificed 4, 8 and 24 weeks after surgery for histological and histomorphometric assessments. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC%), alveolar bone height (ABH) and the percentages of mineralized bone (MB%) in the area of interest were analysed. The probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also assessed to describe peri-implant health conditions. RESULTS: Sprouts of new bone in direct contact with implant surface were seen in the elevated area at every time point. Newly formed woven bone under sinus membrane was visible. SLActive implants exhibited favourable results compared with SLA implants regarding ABH at 4 weeks and BIC% at 4 and 8 weeks. Sites with BOP positive could be observed in both groups at any time point. No newly formed bone can be found on the implant apex with either SLA or SLActive surfaces at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous new bone formation from the parent bone walls could be observed after TFE without any grafting materials. No clear evidence of bone formation from the Schneiderian membrane could be found. Even though there were trends for quicker bone response of SLActive implants, this study failed to show the absolute advantage of SLActive in achieving endo-sinus bone formation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".