Long‐term outcomes of the implants accidentally protruding into nasal cavity extended to posterior maxilla due to inferior meatus pneumatization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information about inferior meatus pneumatization in terms of implant treatment for the posterior maxilla. PURPOSE: To demonstrate the clinical, radiologic, and nasal endoscopic outcomes of implants accidentally protruding into the nasal cavities with inferior meatus pneumatization in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 560 implants (324 patients) with transcrestal sinus augmentation in the posterior maxilla were screened. On panoramic radiographs, 132 implants (78 patients) appear to penetrate the sinus floor, but cone-beam computed tomography demonstrated that 26 implants (13 patients) penetrated the nasal floor due to inferior meatus pneumatization. Width of nasal and sinus cavities and extent of penetration were radiographically measured. Nasal endoscopy was performed. RESULTS: Two implants were lost during 13.81 ± 5.40 years due to peri-implantitis. However, no nasosinusal problem occurred in any patient. The nasal cavity was significantly larger in patients with implants penetrating the pneumatized inferior meatus than in those with implants penetrating the sinus floor (P< .05). Nasal endoscopy demonstrated that the apical portion of the implants was covered with thin mucosa without inflammation. CONCLUSION: Implants accidentally penetrating the pneumatized inferior meatus demonstrated high survival with no specific nasosinusal complications. Inferior meatus pneumatization should be considered for implant treatment in the posterior maxilla.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".