Clinical Performance of Dental Implants Following Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials with at Least 3 Years of Follow-up

Antonoglou, Georgios N.; Stavropoulos, Andreas; Σαμαρά, Μαρία; Ioannidis, Alexis; Benić, Goran I.; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.; Sándor, George K.B.

doi:10.11607/jomi.6417

Cited by 44 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) was originally developed by Tatum in the mid-seventies and afterwards described by Boyne and James in 1980 [1,2]. Nowadays, MSFA applying the lateral window technique is the most commonly used surgical procedure to increase the vertical alveolar bone height of the posterior maxilla before or in conjunction with placement of dental implants, and the treatment outcome involving various types of grafting materials have been documented in systematic reviews and meta-analyses [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Autogenous bone graft is generally considered the preferred grafting material for MSFA due to its osteoinductive, osteogenic and osteoconductive characteristics [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Starch‐Jensen¹,

Deluiz²,

Bruun³

et al. 2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objective of present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in histomorphometric outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft alone compared with alternate grafting materials applying the lateral window technique. Material and Methods MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 25 th of March, 2020 were included. Histomorphometric outcomes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 1902 entries. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics showed comparable or improved histomorphometric outcomes with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference of -7.1% (CI = -11.0 to -3.2) indicating a significant higher amount of bone after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with alternate grafting materials. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a non-significantly differences of -3.7% (CI = -10.9 to 3.4), -11.5% (CI = -25.9 to 2.8), 2.2% (CI = -16.9 to 21.3), and -4.6% (CI = -14.4 to 5.2), when autogenous bone graft was compared with allogeneic bone graft, xenograft, composite grafting materials involving xenograft or synthetic biomaterial mixed with autogenous bone graft, respectively. Conclusions Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft seems to facilitate improved histomorphometric outcomes compared with alternate grafting materials. However, the included studies were characterised by an unclear risk of bias and various methodological confounding factors. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of present study should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Starch‐Jensen¹,

Deluiz²,

Bruun³

et al. 2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To facilitate implant placement in the areas of the posterior maxilla with insufficient alveolar height, a maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) technique using a lateral approach was invented (Boyne & James, 1980). Over the last 40 years, a variety of modifications to this technique has been published and clinical trials have confirmed its predictability and long‐term efficacy (Antonoglou et al., 2018; Chanavaz et al., 1995; Pjetursson et al., 2008; Raghoebar et al., 2019; Tatum et al., 1993). The first and one of the best grafting materials for this intervention is the autologous bone (AB), which was considered by many authors as the "gold standard.” It possesses osteoinductive, osteoconductive, and osteogenic capabilities, but also involves donor‐site morbidity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative performance of various biomaterials used for maxillary sinus augmentation: A Bayesian network meta‐analysis

Trimmel

Gede

Hegyi

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the histomorphometric outcomes obtained in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with different biomaterials used for maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA). Materials and Methods A search of the existing medical literature until October 1, 2019, was performed. Inclusion criteria were (a) RCTs assessing a two‐stage MSA from the lateral approach using autologous bone or biomaterials for grafting and (b) reported histomorphometric outcomes based on crestal bone core biopsy samples. The Bayesian method was used to perform pairwise meta‐analyses and network meta‐analysis (NMA). The primary outcome, the new bone percentage (NB %), was calculated as mean differences with 95% credible intervals. The interventions were ranked by their posterior probability by calculating the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Results Thirty‐four RCTs (842 MSAs) were included in the analysis with a normal healing period (5–8 months). All comparisons were presented in a league table. On the basis of the ranking probability, the most effective bone grafting material for NB% was bovine xenograft + bone marrow concentrate (BMC) (81%), followed by bovine xenograft + platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) (77%), bioactive glass ceramic + autologous bone 1:1 (70%), nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in silica gel (70%), and bioactive glass ceramic (70%). Autologous bone graft alone took the twelfth position with 57%. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present NMA, the analysis did not confirm autologous bone alone as the gold standard for MSA and showed superiority of composite grafts such as bovine xenograft + BMC after 5–8 months of healing.

show abstract

“…Graziani et al reported a wider range of implant survival in MSFA (36% to 100%) than in implants placed in the pristine posterior maxilla (73% to 100%) at patient level in their systematic review [ 17 ]; however, they could not elucidate the reasons for the variability due to the heterogeneity of studies. The effects of multiple variables, including the sinus elevation technique, use and type of graft material, use of a barrier membrane over the lateral window, and timing of implant placement, were studied or mentioned in some systematic reviews about the clinical performance of implants with MSFA [ 9 , 17 , 18 ]. These factors can hinder a consistent result of studies on those implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Comparison of Survival and Marginal Bone of Implants with and without Sinus Augmentation in Maxillary Molars within the Same Patients: A 5.8- to 22-Year Retrospective Study

Park

Han

Kang

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is widely used and considered a predictable procedure for implant placement. However, the influence of MSFA on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) is still inconclusive. The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the long-term genuine influence of MSFA on the survival and MBL of implants by comparing those with and without MSFA only in maxillary molars within the same patients. Thirty-eight patients (28 male and 10 female), with a total of 119 implants, received implants with and without MSFA, and were followed up for 5.8 to 22 years. Patient- and implant-related factors were assessed with a frailty model for implant survival and with generalized estimation equations (GEE) for MBL around the implant. No variables showed a statistical significance for implant failure in the frailty model. In GEE analysis for MBL, MSFA did not show any statistical significance. In conclusion, MSFA demonstrated no significant influence on implant failure and MBL in posterior maxilla in this study.

show abstract

Clinical Performance of Dental Implants Following Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials with at Least 3 Years of Follow-up

Abstract: Current evidence suggests that implants in augmented sinuses have high survival rates, with smoking playing a potentially important negative role in their prognosis. Both indirect and direct maxillary sinus floor augmentation seem to have a low frequency of manageable complications.

Cited by 44 publications

References 0 publications

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Relative performance of various biomaterials used for maxillary sinus augmentation: A Bayesian network meta‐analysis

Long-Term Comparison of Survival and Marginal Bone of Implants with and without Sinus Augmentation in Maxillary Molars within the Same Patients: A 5.8- to 22-Year Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About