Survival analysis of implants placed simultaneously with lateral sinus floor elevation in severely atrophic maxilla: A 3‐ to 12‐year retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate whether implants placed simultaneously with lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) in severely atrophic maxilla (residual bone height [RBH] ≤3 mm) could achieve long-term survival and comprehensively analyze the factors influencing their survival rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 123 patients receiving LSFE and simultaneous implant placement from 2010 to 2019 and their 123 implants in sites with RBH ≤3 mm were included in this study. Basic characteristics of patients and implants were collected from the medical record system and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were applied to estimate cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to detect factors influencing implant survival. RESULTS: The 6-year and 12-year CSR of implants placed in sites with RBH ≤3 mm were 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.1%-99.5%) and 76.6% (95% CI: 58.1%-100%), respectively. Eight patients presented late implant failure. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that RBH ≤2 mm (hazard ratio [HR]: 20.63, p = 0.000) and smoking habit (HR: 6.055, p = 0.024) were significantly associated with long-term implant survival. Specifically, the 10-year CSR of implants in sites with RBH ≤2 mm (53.3%, 95% CI: 27.5%-100%) was dramatically lower than those in sites with RBH >2 mm (92.9%, 95% CI: 81.7%-100%, p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Implants placed simultaneously with LSFE in sites with RBH ≤3 mm can achieve long-term survival. However, caution is required especially for implantation in sites with RBH ≤2 mm. Besides, the smoking habit is also considered a risk factor jeopardizing long-term implant survival.
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) | 0.000 | 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".