Endoscope‐assisted maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a mini‐lateral window: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscope-controlled sinus floor augmentation through a mini-lateral window, compared with traditional lateral window approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective research included 19 patients and 20 augmented sinuses using lateral window approach with simultaneous implant placement (test group: a 3-4 mm round osteotomy; control group: a 10 × 8 mm rectangular osteotomy). Preoperatively (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6 months postoperatively (T2), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained. Residual bone height (RBH), lateral window dimension (LWD), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), apical bone height (ABH), and bone density were measured. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Patients' evaluation of pain first day after surgery and a week later was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in ESBG, ABH between the two groups at T1, T2 or their changes from T1 to T2. However, the increase of bone density value in the test group was significantly higher than control group (356.28 ± 149.59 vs. 242.99 ± 129.54; p < 0.05). The sinus perforation rate of test and control group was 10% and 20%, respectively. The VAS score of the test group at the first day after surgery was significantly lower than control group (4.20 ± 1.03 vs. 5.60 ± 1.71; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscope-controlled maxillary sinus floor augmentation through a mini-lateral window yield similar result with traditional approach in terms of bone height gain. The modified approach could facilitate new bone formation, reducing sinus perforation rate and postoperative pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".