Maxillary sinus membrane perforation rate utilizing osseodensification‐mediated transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A multicenter clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This multicenter cross‐sectional clinical study aimed to evaluate the membrane perforation rate during transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) using osseodensification (OD) burs and assess risk factors associated with the procedure. Materials and Methods This study was conducted in six centers, following ethical standards and approved by local committees. It included patients over 18 years old missing maxillary posterior teeth with crestal residual bone height (RBH) ≥2 and ≤6 mm. Preoperative evaluations were done, including CBCT scans, to assess bone dimensions and sinus health. All centers and surgeons followed a standardized surgical protocol for TSFE using OD burs. Surgical complications, particularly sinus membrane perforations, were recorded and analyzed. Factors such as implant site, premolars or molars, as well as, healed or fresh socket, along with initial RBH were evaluated for their impact on membrane perforation rate. Descriptive statistics, χ2, and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Results A total of 621 subjects with an average age of 57.9 years were included. Sinus lifting was performed at 670 sites, with 621 implants placed in the maxilla. The majority of sinus lifts were done in the molar region (76.87%) and in healed bone sites (74.33%). The average RBH was 5.1 mm (ranging from 2 to 7 mm). Sinus membrane perforation occurred in 49 cases (7.31%). RBH ≤3 mm posed a risk factor for sinus membrane perforations followed by RBH >3 and ≤5 mm. Tooth region and implant site were not associated as risk factors for sinus membrane perforation. Conclusion OD drilling used for TSFE resulted in low membrane perforation rate. Challenging scenarios of severe posterior maxillary atrophy presented as risk factors for increased perforation rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".