Diagnostic reliability and accuracy of the hydraulic contrast lift protocol in the radiographic detection of sinus lift and perforation: ex vivo randomized split-mouth study in an ovine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessing the diagnostic reliability, validity, and accuracy of the hydraulic contrast lift protocol during transcrestal sinus floor elevation in detecting the lift and perforation of the sinus membrane before graft material application and assessing the effect of its use on the operator's diagnostic confidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-blind randomized split-mouth study on fresh refrigerated sheep heads. The first intervention consisted of injecting 0.5 ml iodinated contrast medium on the test side and 0.5 ml saline on the control side. In the second intervention artificial sinus membrane perforations were created followed by injecting 0.5 ml iodinated contrast medium on the test side and 0.5 ml saline on the control side. Intraoperative periapical radiographs were taken for both interventions. The resulting 40 radiographs were assessed by 10 examiners to provide interpretations and confidence ratings. The primary endpoints were diagnostic reliability, validity, accuracy, and perceived diagnostic confidence. RESULTS: In the hydraulic contrast lift protocol, the detection rate was 99% for sinus elevations and 98% for perforations, the saline protocol yielded a detection rate of 28% and 20% respectively. The hydraulic contrast lift protocol demonstrated a high level of inter-rater agreement for the diagnosis of elevations (p < 0.001) and perforations (p < 0.001), strong diagnostic validity for the diagnosis of elevations (p < 0.001) and perforations (p < 0.001), high sensitivity and specificity (p < 0.001) and higher mean diagnostic confidence ratings for both interventions when compared to the saline protocol (p < 0.001). The difference between the predicted probability for correct diagnosis of the hydraulic contrast lift protocol and the saline protocol was significant (p < 0.001) for the detection of both elevations and perforations. CONCLUSION: Following the hydraulic contrast lift protocol, the use of a radiographic contrast medium can reliably confirm sinus membrane lift and detect perforation during transcrestal sinus floor elevation prior to bone graft application in addition to improving the diagnostic confidence of the operator while relying on periapical radiographs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".