Association between smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation during maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To estimate the association between smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation in sinus floor augmentation. Materials and methods Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted by two authors independently. The inclusion criteria were the (1) age of patients >18, (2) the number of participants >10, and (3) smoking and the patients of Schneiderian membrane perforation were accurately recorded. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Statistics analyses were conducted using Reman5.4.1 and Stata (15.0). The association of Schneiderian membrane perforation with smoking habits during maxillary sinus floor elevation was expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CIs). And the I2 statistic was used to estimate statistical heterogeneity. The funnel plot and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the reliability and stability of the results. Results Of 1463 articles screened, nine studies were included in our systematic review, and eight were synthesized for meta‐analysis. Eight were retrospective observational studies and one was a clinical trial, with a total of 1424 patients included. The nine studies were proved as high quality according to the NOS. There was no significant publication bias in the studies (p = 0.827). A random‐effects model was used because of differences in the adopted methodologies (p = 0.39, I2 = 5%). During maxillary sinus augmentation, smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation were associated (odds ratios, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.10–2.25]). Conclusion Smoking increased the risk of membrane perforation in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Our evaluation was limited by the poor reporting of the number of cigarettes smoked per day (PROSPERO number was CRD42022306570).
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".