Dental Implants Survival After Nasal Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work is to assess the clinical outcomes of implants placed after a nasal floor elevation procedure. A systematic review was conducted using 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, and Scopus, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews) statement recommendations to answer the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) question: "In patients undergoing dental implant placement in the maxillary anterior region (P), Do implants placed after nasal floor elevation (I) have a different survival (O) from those implants placed without grafting procedures (C)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229479). Included article quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tool", "The Newcastle-Ottawa scale," and "JBI critical appraisal tools for case reports." Twelve articles were finally selected, including 151 patients and 460 implants. The weighted mean follow-up was 32.2 months, and the weighted survival rate after this period was 97.64% (range: 89.2%-100%). No statistical differences could be inferred between the treatments performed in 1- or 2-stage, following a lateral approach or a transcrestal approach or using different grafting materials. A great heterogeneity was found in study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Within the limitations of this study, implants placed after a nasal floor elevation present a good survival and a low range of complications. In absence of randomized studies, the level of evidence was low, attending the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) system and based on the study quality level, the strength of evidence attending the SORT (Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy) was B.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".