MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409265287 · doi:10.1111/cid.70019

Anatomy of the Maxillary Sinus and the Role of <scp>CT</scp> Scans in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Surgery

2025· review· en· W4409265287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriele Rosano, C. Vacher, B. Lazaroo, Enrico M. Strappa, Jean‐François Gaudy

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaxillary sinusSinus (botany)AnatomyDental alveolusDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Detailed knowledge of sinus anatomy as well as timely identification through CT scans of the anatomic structures inherent to the maxillary sinus is required to avoid unnecessary surgical complications. PURPOSE: To investigate sinus homeostasis, physiology, and anatomy; to review all anatomical-related risk factors for sinus membrane perforation; and to analyze the significance of preoperative and postoperative sinus CT scan imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the recent literature on the above topics were explored. RESULTS: Thinner membranes may not have sufficient mechanical strength to resist force during elevation or bone grafting, and thicker membranes may be associated with the presence of subclinical sinusitis. Increased thickness of an unhealthy membrane generally indicates a weaker membrane with a gelatinous texture, whereas thickening of a healthy membrane occurs at the periosteal layer level and can enhance its strength. Sinus membrane thickness, sinus septa, type of edentulism, and root position relative to the sinus cavity, residual bone height, sinus width, palatonasal recess angle, buccal wall thickness, zygomatic arch location, alveolar antral artery, and bone dehiscence may influence the clinical complexity of the surgery. There is no clear evidence of systematic negative outcomes related to sinus perforations. In patients with severely atrophic posterior maxillas, the possibility of lacerating the alveolar antral artery and/or detecting antral septa must be considered, especially when the residual ridge height is < 3 mm high. Transient edema and thickening of the sinus mucosal membrane typically resolve spontaneously. In cases of graft extrusion, conservative management could be considered for asymptomatic patients with healthy sinus and open ostium at the time of surgery. On the other hand, patients with symptoms should be referred. Radiographic evidence of implant protrusion into the sinuses is not always associated with complications. CONCLUSIONS: Investigating sinus homeostasis and physiology, exploring the vascular anatomy within the maxillary sinus, identifying anatomical risk factors for sinus membrane perforation, and analyzing the significance of preoperative and postoperative sinus CT imaging provide a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluating the complexity of maxillary sinus augmentation using a lateral approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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