A 2‐year prospective case series on volumetric changes, PROMs, and clinical outcomes following sinus floor elevation using deproteinized bovine bone mineral as filling material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A sinus floor augmentation may be indicated when a lack of hard tissue impedes implant placement. Although clinically successful, evidence supporting the long-term three-dimensional stability of the grafted volume is scarce. Second, evidence on the patient's acceptance of this type of treatment is limited. PURPOSE: First is to evaluate the changes in graft volume after lateral wall sinus lifting based on superimposed cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and then to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Partially edentulous patients in need of a sinus lift and fixed reconstruction on at least two neighboring implants were selected for a prospective case series. Lateral wall sinus augmentation was performed using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) as the only filling material. Volumetric changes were quantified on the basis of a preoperative CBCT and three postoperative CBCTs (at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 2 years). PROMs and clinical parameters were registered. RESULTS: at 2 years postoperative pointing to a relative graft volume stability of 79.7%. Swelling was the leading symptom during the first week. A peak in visual analogue scale scores was observed for pain, swelling, and hematoma the day of surgery and 1 day postoperation with a statistically significant decline between days 3 and 7. Hemorrhage and nose bleeding occurred in 18.2% and 27.3% of the subjects, respectively. About 95.5% of the subjects would undergo the treatment again. All implants integrated successfully and demonstrated healthy clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: Lateral wall sinus augmentation using DBBM as the only filling material is a viable treatment concept given limited graft resorption, good patients' tolerance, and clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".