Using zinc oxide-based temporary materials as contrast methods: a practical and simple approach for planning prosthetically driven sinus elevation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Endosteal implants are a well-established treatment modality to rehabilitate partially and completely edentulous patients. Contemporary regenerative materials and surgical techniques such as direct sinus elevation permit placing endosteal implants predictably in ridges with severe vertical deficiencies. One of the biggest challenges related to this augmentation procedure occurs during the planning stage, when the access to the maxillary sinus, and the number of implants required are tailored specifically for the clinical situation. To minimize the morbidity and maximize post-surgical recovery the extension of lateral window must correspond with the planned implant positions and should not be extended beyond. When establishing these positions, the dentist in charge of the planning the case must be able to clearly visualize the proposed contours of the restorations, their long axes, and their relationship with the residual ridge and the underlying maxillary sinus anatomy. Traditionally, radiographic templates involving contrast agents such as barium sulfate, and tin foil have been used for this purpose; however, the use of these materials often involves extensive dental laboratory procedures. This brief report presents an alternative use for zinc-oxide-based dental materials that permits visualizing the desired prosthetic contours at the diagnostic stage and ensures the placement of the graft material in prosthetically favorable positions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".