Maxillary sinus lift augmentation: A randomized clinical trial with histological data comparing deproteinized bovine bone grafting vs graftless procedure with a 5–12‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Different protocols and procedures for sinus lift and implant placement are available, generally involving the use of grafts to increase the tissue volume and/or prevent the Schneiderian membrane from collapsing. Among xenografts, deproteinised bovine bone graft (DBBP) is frequently used in sinus lift procedures. Leaving an ungrafted space following membrane elevation has proven to have a bony regenerative potential as well. This study aimed to compare the clinical and histological features of sinus lift surgery performed with or without biomaterials. METHODS: Patients with severe maxillary posterior atrophy (residual bone height 2-6 mm and residual crest thickness ≥4 mm), and in need of sinus lift surgery to allow the placement of three implants were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups. They underwent sinus lifts with DBBP (control) or with a graftless technique (test) and immediate placement of two implants (a mesial and distal one). After 6 months, a bone sample was retrieved from the area between the previously inserted fixtures, and a third, central implant was placed. The collected bone samples were analyzed morphologically and histomorphometrically. The patients were provided with prosthetic restorations after 6 months and followed up for 5-12 years. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled in the test and nine in the control group. The 6-month follow-up showed in the control group an average augmentation of 10.31 mm (±2.12), while in the test group it was 8.5 mm (±1.41) and a success rate of 96.3% in the control and 86.7% in the test group (p > 0.05). The histological analysis evidenced the presence of new bone tissue surrounded by immature osteoid matrix in the test group, and a variable number of DBBP particles surrounded by an immature woven bone matrix in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of the present trial indicate that, with residual bone height of 2-6 mm and residual crest thickness ≥4 mm, sinus lift surgery with or without biomaterials followed by implant restoration, produces similar clinical and histological outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".