Prevention and management of intra‐operative complications in maxillary sinus augmentation: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".