Modified internal sinus elevation for patients with low residual bone height: A retrospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have modified the internal sinus elevation by combining it with the sinus mucoperiosteum stripping procedure, which further increases the indications for the internal lift. Similar long-term clinical follow-up studies and three-dimensional finite element analyses are rare. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of the modified internal sinus floor elevation method in patients with low residual bone height using a three-dimensional (3D) finite element model and report on the long-term outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 99 implants were placed in 86 patients. All patients were followed-up for 3-24 months. The modified internal sinus floor elevation was dynamically simulated using a 3D finite element model, and the stress of the sinus membrane was measured. RESULTS: In trial group A (modified internal sinus floor elevation group), 57 implants were placed in 52 patients. The sinus floor height was lifted by 6.5 mm (95%confidence interval (CI): 6.2-6.8). The perforation rate was 8.8%, and the implant survival rate was 96.5%. In control group B (external sinus floor elevation group), 42 implants were placed in 34 patients. The sinus floor height was lifted by 8.8 mm (95%CI: 8.4-9.3). The perforation rate was 14.3%, and the implant survival rate was 100%. In trial group A, compared with the control group B, perforation decreased by 5.5% (odds ratio = 0.50 and 95%CI: 0.14-1.78; p = 0.282), and the sinus floor lift height was 2.3 mm lower (95%CI, 1.8-2.9; p < 0.001). The finite element analysis showed that the peak stress of the sinus membrane increased with an increase in height elevation and degree of membrane separation. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate the positive clinical outcomes in patients with low RBH associated with the modified internal sinus elevation procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".