Effects of Different External Sinus Lifting Techniques on Perioperative Complications and Patient Comfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study is to explore how different external sinus lifting approaches affect perioperative complications and patient comfort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study was conducted with patients who were admitted for rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla and met inclusion the criteria. Sinuses to be lifted were randomized into three groups: piezosurgery with a surgical guide, a specially designed bur for lateral sinus lift, and conventional burs. Intraoperative complications, ease of access, and operation time were recorded. Pain measured with visual analog scale (VAS) and analgesic consumption were evaluated over 1 week postoperatively. Edema was evaluated preoperatively and on the 2nd and 7th postoperative days. Patient expectations, experiences, and quality of life with the OHIP-14 questionnaire were assessed preoperatively and on the 7th postoperative day. RESULT: 30 sinus lifting procedures were conducted on 27 patients, comprising 16 men and 11 women. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups in terms of operation and osteotomy time, pain level, analgesic consumption, edema, patient experience, and quality of life (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were found regarding membrane elevation time (p < 0.05) and ease of access to the surgical site (p < 0.001) among the groups. CONCLUSION: Piezo surgical approach assisted by a surgical guide appears advantageous in terms of operation time, surgical site accessibility, and quality of life. However, in cases where increased edema is expected, the use of specially designed burs for lateral sinus lift may be preferable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID: NCT06601816. This randomized clinical trial was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization (https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/beta/studies/S000EWSQ00000038/recordSummary).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".