Adjacent tooth migration after maxillary first molar loss in patients with sinus augmentation: A retrospective research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study are to: (1) investigate the extent of antagonistic and distal neighboring tooth migration in the maxillary posterior single tooth-missing site during the healing period of bone augmentation and implant surgery; (2) identify factors associated with tooth migration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and forty-three cases that lost the maxillary first molar were included, and their CBCT data during the edentulous period were obtained. Dentition models were reconstructed from CBCT, and superimpositions were performed, followed by measuring migration distances and calculating migration rates of antagonistic and distal neighboring teeth. Factors were analyzed using multivariate generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: The mean migration distances were 208 ± 137 μm and 403 ± 605 μm for antagonistic teeth and distal teeth, and the mean migration rates were 26.8 ± 21.2 μm/month and 48.5 ± 76.7 μm/month, respectively. One hundred and nineteen out of 143 distal neighboring teeth migrated toward the edentulous site, and all antagonistic teeth migrated occlusally. Occlusal contact loss and chronic apical periodontitis both significantly accelerated antagonistic tooth migration (p < 0.05), the latter also accelerated distal tooth migration (p < 0.05). Besides, the displacement of the distal teeth was somewhat accelerated by the impacted adjacent third molar and root protrusion into the sinus. CONCLUSIONS: The neighboring teeth tend to migrate toward the edentulous gap in the maxillary posterior region. Occlusal contact loss and chronic apical periodontitis are two significant risk factors for accelerating antagonistic tooth migration, and for distal teeth, chronic apical periodontitis is the risk factor. The impacted adjacent third molar and root protrusion into the sinus are also potential risk factors for accelerating the migration of the maxillary distal tooth. Thus, to prevent maxillary edentulous gap reduction, the factors mentioned above should be taken into consideration when planning treatment flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".