Osseodensification versus lateral window technique for sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement: A randomized clinical trial on patient‐reported outcome measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To compare patient‐reported outcome measures and additional surgical outcomes after sinus floor elevation (SFE) with osseodensification (OD) versus lateral window (LW), both with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and Methods Twenty participants requiring single‐implant rehabilitation with residual bone height (RBH) ≤4 mm were enrolled. Pain experience, quality of life (QoL) via the Oral Health Impact Profile‐14 (OHIP‐14), analgesics intake, and other symptoms were self‐reported for a week on a daily basis. Surgery duration, complications, and implant stability quotient at baseline (ISQ T0) and after 6 months (ISQ T6) were registered. Participants were followed up for 1 year. Results From Day 0 (day of surgery) to Day 3, pain experience was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the OD group. OHIP‐14 score was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the OD group on all postoperative days, except on Day 5. Average analgesics intake was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OD group. Surgery mean duration was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in LW compared to OD (71.1 ± 10.4 vs. 32.9 ± 5.3 min). After osseointegration period, all implants were successfully restored with screw‐retained crowns. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that OD and LW techniques were similarly effective in SFE with simultaneous implant placement when RBH ≤ 4 mm. However, OD significantly outperformed LW in pain experience, impact on self‐perceived QoL, surgery duration, postoperative edema, and analgesics intake.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".