MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407225452 · doi:10.1111/cid.70008

Long‐Term Bone Height Changes After Sinus Floor Elevation With Maxillary or Mandibular Bone Grafts: A Radiological Study

2025· article· en· W4407225452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wilhelmus F. Bouwman, Francis A. Eijsackers, Nathalie Bravenboer, C.M. ten Bruggenkate, Sharon Remmelzwaal, E.A.J.M. Schulten

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMaxillary sinusImplantMandible (arthropod mouthpart)RadiographyOrthodonticsSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of maxillary and mandibular autogenous bone grafts on maxillary bone height in patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE). METHODS: The study involved 92 patients, divided into two groups: 37 patients receiving maxillary bone grafts for MSFE and 55 patients receiving mandibular bone grafts for MSFE. Bone height after MSFE was measured on panoramic radiographs up to 60 months postoperatively, comparing different positions and situations. RESULTS: In general, both maxillary and mandibular bone grafts resulted in an increase in bone height directly after the MSFE procedure, followed by a bone height loss over time, with no significant differences between the two groups for gap and free-end positions. However, at distal to implant positions, mandibular bone grafts showed less bone loss. Despite gradual bone height loss, all implants remained covered with bone without exposure or subsequent loss, indicating a successful MSFE procedure. CONCLUSION: This radiologic study showed that over a long-term period there is a similar bone height pattern at dental implant sites and sites distal to implants when maxillary or mandibular bone grafts are used in MSFE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→