Osseodensified Crestal Sinus Window Augmentation: An Alternative Procedure to the Lateral Window Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel minimally invasive technique, osseodensification, is proposed to facilitate maxillary sinus bone graft augmentation. The osseodensified crestal window overcomes the previous limitations of traditional crestal approaches with respect to residual bone height (RBH) of ≤1.5 mm as well as vertical height of augmentation (>10 mm). Three patients, healthy and non-smoking, with 3 distinct and difficult clinical situations requiring sinus augmentation and having a maximum of 1.5 mm RBH (0.4-1.5 mm) were selected for this procedure. Edentulous sections were large (entire posterior sextant, with and without sinus septa), and small (single hyperpneumatized maxillary molar site). All healing was rapid and uneventful with no instances of sinus membrane perforation or other complications seen. The vertical increase in sinus bone height ranged from 10.3 mm to 13.6 mm. The increase in bone height is comparable to that obtained with lateral window procedures. The osseodensified crestal sinus window technique may be thus be proposed as a possible alternative procedure for the lateral sinus window technique for maxillary sinus bone augmentation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".