The influence of different forms of sinus membrane perforation on the prevalence of postoperative complications in lateral window sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maxillary sinus membrane perforation (SMP) during lateral window sinus floor elevation (SFE) might be associated with postoperative complications (PC). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of PC and clinical implant outcome for different forms of SMP with lateral window SFE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The prevalence of PC such as maxillary sinusitis, graft necrosis and wound infection was retrospectively evaluated for 434 lateral window SFE (334 patients) with 331 SFE (241 patients) without and 103 SFE (93 patients) with SMP. SMP was additionally classified into four subgroups regarding to membrane perforation size (small-moderate [<10 mm] vs. large [>10 mm]) and membrane biotype ([BT] thin vs. thick). Additionally, patient- and surgery-related risk factors affecting PC and the 1-year implant survival rate were evaluated for SFE without and with SMP and subgroups. RESULTS: A significantly higher prevalence including significant odds ratios of PC such as maxillary sinusitis (10/103 [9.7%] vs. 4/331 [1.2%]; p < 0.021; OR: 8.85; p < 0.021) and graft necrosis (7/103[6.8%] vs. 1/103[0.3%]; p < 0.017; OR:7.43; p < 0.017) was found for SFE with than without SMP. The SMP subgroup with large size and thin BT involved significantly (p < 0.005) more PC (15/20[75%]) than all other SMP subgroups (5/20[25%]). For the risk factors evaluated the univariate analysis demonstrated differences of PC for the presence versus absence of SMP (p < 0.001) and for thin versus thick sinus mucosa (p < 0.038; p < 0.006) but not for sex, smoking, sinus septa and surgical stage. In the multivariate risk factors analysis, PC were significantly related to risk factors such as large size with thin BT (OR:18.049; p < 0.007). The 1-year implant survival rate did not differ between SFE without (99.5%) and with SMP (99.1%), regardless of successfully repaired subtype of SMP. CONCLUSION: The synopsis of perforation size and membrane biotype is crucial in differentiating different forms of SMP assessing and anticipating different prevalences of PC in lateral window SFE.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".