The assessment of the effect of the size of <scp>lateral‐antrostomy</scp> in graftless balloon elevation of the maxillary sinus membrane with simultaneous implant placement (a randomized controlled clinical trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The overlying maxillary sinus frequently restrains the height of the posterior maxillary bones. PURPOSE: Evaluating the effect of downsizing the antrostomy side-window on the stability of the installed implants and vertical bone gain, after employing a graftless antral membrane balloon elevation (AMBE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted on 20 patients with 30 deficient maxillary alveolar ridges underwent graftless (AMBE) after being allocated into a (5 mm) entry antrostomy group (the test group) and a (10 mm) entry antrostomy group (the control group) implementing a radiographic linear bone height and implant stability quotations (ISQ) comparison among both groups immediately after the placement of 38 Implants and 6 months after. RESULTS: Radiographic bone gain of the test group (5.55 ± 0.93 mm) was significantly higher than the control group (2.86 ± 0.60 mm) (p <0.001). There was no significant difference in primary stability between the test (65 ± 5.32) and control groups (62.67 ± 4.46) (p = 0.202); while the test group (73.43 ± 4.39) showed significantly higher secondary stability than the control group (64.83 ± 6.05) (p <0.001). ISQ values recorded at 6 months were significantly higher than those recorded at insertion in the test group (p <0.001), while they were insignificant in the control group (p = 0.148). CONCLUSION: Undersizing the antrostomy window deemed beneficial concerning the vertical bone gain and the simultaneously placed root form dental implants' secondary stability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".