MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387033279 · doi:10.1111/cid.13281

The transalveolar approach with the small segmentation method for inclined maxillary sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

2023· article· en· W4387033279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xianxian Zhuang, Jiating Lin, Hao Dong, Yin Wen, Ruoting Xian, Lu Cheng, Jingyi Wu, Shaobing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of XinjiangSouthern Medical UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineCone beam computed tomographyDentistrySinus liftMaxillary sinusOsseointegrationSagittal planeSinus (botany)OrthodonticsMaxillaImplantSurgeryComputed tomographyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcome of the transalveolar approach with the small segmentation method for inclined maxillary sinus floor elevation. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with an inclined maxillary sinus floor (tilt angle ≥ 10°) and insufficient residual bone height in the posterior maxilla were included and grouped according to the tilt angle of the sinus floor, with group A having patients with the tilt angle ≥ 10° and ≤ 30° and group B having patients with the tilt angle > 30°. After completing sinus membrane elevation and bone augmentation using bone substitute materials, the implants were inserted at the same appointment, and the restoration was completed after 5-6 months of osseointegration. The preoperative sinus floor level and sinus floor elevation achieved postoperatively were assessed and recorded. At pre- and post-operative timepoints, the sagittal plane of the cone beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the bone height changes at the peak, middle and valley points in the slope segment intended for implant implantation. RESULTS: Osseointegration was evident in all 61 patients, and the final restoration was completed with functional loading. After assessing the normality and homogeneity of variance, two-sample t-test or nonparametric tests were employed to estimate the differences in the bone height changes. The degrees of freedom (df) for this analysis were 59. The elevation attained at the middle point in groups A and B were 6.71 ± 1.38 and 5.75 ± 1.56 mm, respectively, demonstrating a significant difference (p < 0.05). Furthermore, at the peak and valley points, group A exhibited bone height changes of 5.79 ± 1.74 and 6.06 ± 1.45 mm, respectively, compared to group B with changes measuring 4.63 ± 2.18 and 5.58 ± 2.39 mm, respectively, with no significant difference in the two groups (p ≥ 0.05). The prevalence of intraoperative sinus membrane perforation was assessed using the chi-square test. It was found that four cases in group A and five cases in group B experienced sinus membrane perforation, with no significant difference in the two groups (p ≥ 0.05, df = 1). CONCLUSION: The transalveolar approach using the small segmentation method suggests a promising approach for elevating the inclined maxillary sinus floor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→