Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review

Abstract

The retrieved evidence provides a low level of support for selection of AB or a bone substitute. Clear reasons could not be identified that should prompt the clinician to prefer AB or BS.

Maxillary sinus lift with solely autogenous bone compared to a combination of autogenous bone and growth factors or (solely) bone substitutes. A systematic review

“…The available data indicate comparable implant survival in areas reconstructed with either autogenous bone alone or bone substitutes in combination with autogenous bone. This is also supported by the results from NKENKE & STELZLE 19 . When using autogenous bone alone, the healing period can be reduced to an average of 3 months, whereas it is at least 5 months when using a bone substitute either alone or in combination with autogenous bone.…”

“…The best results were obtained using rough surface implants (98% implant survival after 3 years). The analysis in the study from NKENKE & STELZLE 19 considered whether autogenous bone is superior to bone substitutes. This study was limited to titanium implants with modified surfaces placed in sites with 6 mm of residual bone height.…”

“…The reviews published in the international literature did not have such strict inclusion criteria as the current review 7,10,19,20 . In the current systematic review methodological quality was assessed using specific study-design related forms designed by the Dutch Cochrane Collaboration.…”

Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery Using Autologous Bone Grafts from Various Donor Sites: A Meta-Analysis of the Total Bone Volume

“…51 However, there are indications that bone harvested from an intraoral donor site will lead to a higher mineralization rate and increased incorporation compared with iliac bone grafting. 17,31 The choice for selecting intraoral or iliac crest is made on a pure clinical basis.…”

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with vegetal hydroxyapatite "versus" demineralized bovine bone: A randomized clinical study with a split-mouth design

“…To allow implant placement in the posterior part of the maxilla, sinus fl oor augmentation surgery has become a routine procedure [3][4][5] that results in an implant survival rate of over 90% for 3-5 years. [6][7][8] Autogenous bone is considered the gold standard reconstructive material in bone augmentation for osseoproliferative, osseoinductive, and osseoconductive properties; however not all patients are suitable to undergo complex surgeries in intraoral (chin and retromolar areas) or extraoral donor site, due to potential risks of morbidity and complaints. [9] On the other hand, when taken from intraoral sites, bone cannot often provide the large quantity of material needed for augmentation.…”