Volumetric changes and graft stability after lateral window sinus floor augmentation: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present investigation compared the stability and volumetric changes of two different grafting material used for lateral window sinus floor augmentation (LWSFA). METHODS: Sixteen patients with a total 20 maxillary sinuses in need of LWSFA were included in the present study. The sinuses were grafted with either 100% anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) alone (Group 1) or a mixture (0.8:1 ratio) of ABBM and mineralized cortical allograft (MCA) (Group 2). Cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) was obtained pre-operatively, and at 2-weeks, and 6-months after LWSFA to perform linear measurements including lateral window dimensions, sinus anatomy, residual bone height/thickness (RBH/RBT), and Schneiderian membrane thickness (SMT), among others. Three-dimensional segmentation analysis was used to evaluate changes of bone graft volume/height (GV/GH). RESULTS: A total of 10 sinuses per group were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was found in between groups regarding mean reduction of GV (Group 1: 14.87% ± 16.60%, Group 2: 18.06% ± 9.81%, p = 0.33). Among the linear measurements, only SMT revealed a significant increase after 2-weeks more pronounce in Group 1 (8.70 mm) when compared with Group 2 (5.70 mm) with plausible effect upon LWSFA outcomes. Sinus width showed weak positive correlation with GH reduction after 6 months. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that both ABBM alone and ABBM + MCA represent suitable alternatives for LWSFA with adequate graft stability as they revealed similar volumetric and linear dimensional changes 6 months postoperatively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".