Maxillary sinus membrane elevation and coagulum compared with maxillary sinus floor augmentation and a composite graft: A 1‐year single‐blinded randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the 1-year implant outcome and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) after maxillary sinus membrane elevation and coagulum (test) compared with maxillary sinus floor augmentation and a 1:1 ratio of autogenous bone graft from the buccal antrostomy and deproteinised porcine bone mineral (DPBM) (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients (30 female, 10 male) with a mean age of 50 years (range 25-71 years) and an alveolar ridge height between 4 and 7 mm were randomly allocated to test or control. Outcome measures included survival of suprastructures and implants, implant stability quotient, health status of the peri-implant tissue, peri-implant marginal bone loss, frequency of complications and PROMs using Oral Health Impact Profile-14 combined with questionnaires assessing patient's perception of the peri-implant soft tissue, implant crown, function of the implant, and total implant treatment outcome using visual analogue scale. Mean differences were expressed with standard deviation and 95% confidence interval. Level of significance was 0.05. RESULTS: All suprastructures and implants were well-functioning after 1-year of functional implant loading. No significant difference in any of the applied outcome measures was observed between test and control. Both treatments revealed high patient satisfaction scores and significant improvement in oral health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in implant outcome and PROMs between test and control, after 1-year of functional implant loading. Neither of the treatments can therefore be considered better than the other. Thus, long-term randomized controlled trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be provided about the two treatment modalities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".