Devitalization of adjacent teeth following maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A retrospective radiographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elevation of the schneiderian membrane, during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) may theoretically result in devitalization of adjacent teeth, which are in a close spatial relationship to the sinus floor. PURPOSE: To assess retrospectively the probability of devitalization of teeth adjacent to the osteotomy site after MSFA in a relatively large number of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All MSFA procedures, performed at a university oral surgery clinic within a time period of 10 years, were assessed on the following eligibility criteria: (1) presence of vital teeth (ie, not root canal treated and no periapical radiolucency on a panoramic radiograph taken just after MSFA), (2) presence of a 3 to 12 months postoperative radiograph of the teeth adjacent to the osteotomy site displaying the root apices, and (3) complete medical records up to at least 12 months postoperatively. The radiographs of the different time points were compared and any changes in the radiographic status of the adjacent teeth (eg, development of a periapical lesion, root canal treatment, etc.) were recorded and the spatial relationship of the adjacent teeth to the maxillary sinus classified. RESULTS: Out of 684 MSFAs, 257 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and involved 357 adjacent teeth, of which 221 presented close to and/or intimate relationship to the sinus. In only a single case, tooth vitality might have been lost due to the procedure. Thus, the probability for tooth devitalization for teeth with close to and/or intimate spatial relationship to the sinus floor ranged from 0.45% to 0.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Even for teeth with apices very close to and/or intimately related to the sinus tooth devitalization after MSFA is an extremely rare complication; that is, the probability of tooth devitalization after MSFA is ≤0.7%.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".