MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888789841 · doi:10.1111/cid.12660

Does intraoperative perforation of Schneiderian membrane during sinus lift surgery causes an increased the risk of implants failure?: A systematic review and meta regression analysis

2018· review· en· W2888789841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Essam Ahmed Al‐Moraissi, Ahmed Elsharkawy, Bassam Abotaleb, Khaled Alkebsi, Hamza Al‐Motwakel

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinus liftMedicinePerforationDentistryMaxillary sinusMeta-analysisSurgeryImplantInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: There is still debate whether intraoperative Schneiderian membrane (SM) perforation in the maxillary sinus lift causes an increase the risk of implants failure. The aim of this study was to assess an association between SM perforation and implants loss following the maxillary sinus lift. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies assessing association between SM perforation and implants failure based on PRISMA was conducted. Three major databases were used to gather research dating from their respective inception up until March 2018. All clinical studies expressly reported the number of the SM perforation and implants loss that installed in the perforated and nonperforated sinuses were included. The statistical analyses used were Pearson's correlation, simple linear regression, and meta regression. The risk ratio (RR) of implant loss between perforated and nonperforated sites was estimated. RESULTS: A total of 2947 patients with 3884 maxillary sinuses augmentations who received 7358 implants, enrolled in 58 studies were included in this study. There was a significant relationship between the implants' failure and SM perforation according to simple linear regression (P < .001) and meta regression analysis (P = .06). There was a significant decrease (moderate quality evidence) in implant loss in the nonperforated sinuses compared to perforated sunrises (RR = 2.17, CI: 1.52-3.10, P = .001). There was also no significant association between implant loss in the perforated sinuses and the surgical devices used (piezosurgical or rotary), surgical approach applied (lateral or crestal sinus lift), barrier membrane used and type of bone grafting materials. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that an intraoperative SM perforation could increase the risk of implant failure after the sinus lift surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.051
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207