Potential risk factors for maxillary sinus membrane perforation and treatment outcome analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most common complication of sinus floor elevation (SFE) is sinus membrane perforation (SMP). PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between SMP and potential risk factors and to evaluate SMP treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included patients who had undergone a SFE at Division of Oral Surgery and Orthodontics, Medical University of Graz from 2013 to 2017. Analysis of patients' records and CBCT focused on patient-related risk factors (sinus contours, thickness of membrane and lateral sinus wall, interfering septa, crossing vessels, former oroantral communication) and intervention-related risk factors (surgical approach, sides, number of tooth units, and sites). The outcome of SMP treatment was analyzed in the recalls. RESULTS: In all, 121 patients underwent 137 SFE. There were 19 cases of SMP (13.9%). Two significant factors were identified: maxillary sinus contours (P = .001) and thickness of the sinus membrane (P = .005). The sinus membrane perforation rate was highest in narrow tapered sinus contours and when the sinus membrane was thinner than 1 mm. Among 19 cases with SMP, no complications were seen upon recall. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary sinus contours and sinus membrane thickness seem to be relevant factors for SMP. Sinus membrane perforations were successfully treated by coverage with collagen membrane.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".