Collaboration between otolaryngologists and oral surgeons in maxillary sinus elevation planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is crucial for the planning and execution of maxillary sinus elevation (MSE) procedures, which are integral to successful dental implant placements. PURPOSE: This article examines the essential role of otolaryngological assessments in identifying potential sinonasal risks that could impact the outcomes of MSE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive narrative review of existing literature was conducted. DISCUSSION: The review underscores the importance of thorough preoperative evaluations, including patient history, computed tomography (CT) or cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans, and nasal endoscopy, to mitigate sinonasal health risks. It details various clinical scenarios and patient assessments, emphasizing a systematic approach to diagnosing and managing sinonasal conditions proactively. The discussion reveals that while some sinus conditions may not significantly affect MSE success, conditions impacting mucociliary clearance and sinus drainage are critical risk factors requiring otolaryngological intervention. Additionally, the article introduces a grading system to assist clinicians in identifying patients who would benefit from otolaryngological evaluations prior to MSE. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and standardized protocols in enhancing the predictability and safety of MSE procedures, ultimately improving patient 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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".