Shaimaa Nasr1, Dagmar E Slot2, Samah Bahaa3, Christof E Dörfer4, Karim M Fawzy El-Sayed5. 1. Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt. 2. Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology(Head: Prof. Dr. C.E. Dörfer), School of Dental Medicine, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany. 5. Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology(Head: Prof. Dr. C.E. Dörfer), School of Dental Medicine, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: karim.fawzy@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to systematically assess the current evidence on the effect of nongrafted compared to graft-assisted maxillary sinus floor elevation on implant survival/failure, endosinus bone gain, crestal bone loss, and bone density around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were searched up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials-(CCTs), evaluating dental implants placed in combination with maxillary sinus elevation without and with bone grafting. Implant survival/failure served as the primary outcome, whereas endosinus bone gain, crestal bone loss, and bone density around dental implants were secondary outcomes. To assess possible bias, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. Data were extracted and a meta-analysis performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Independent screening of 3180 papers resulted in six eligible experiments. Heterogeneity was observed among experiments. One experiment showed low, three unclear, and two a high risk of bias. The assessed outcomes showed no significant long-term differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limit of the current systematic review, nongrafted maxillary sinus floor elevation seems to be characterized by new bone formation and high implant survival rate comparable to bone-graft-assisted maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Further long-term studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be made.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to systematically assess the current evidence on the effect of nongrafted compared to graft-assisted maxillary sinus floor elevation on implant survival/failure, endosinus bone gain, crestal bone loss, and bone density around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases were searched up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials-(CCTs), evaluating dental implants placed in combination with maxillary sinus elevation without and with bone grafting. Implant survival/failure served as the primary outcome, whereas endosinus bone gain, crestal bone loss, and bone density around dental implants were secondary outcomes. To assess possible bias, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. Data were extracted and a meta-analysis performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Independent screening of 3180 papers resulted in six eligible experiments. Heterogeneity was observed among experiments. One experiment showed low, three unclear, and two a high risk of bias. The assessed outcomes showed no significant long-term differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limit of the current systematic review, nongrafted maxillary sinus floor elevation seems to be characterized by new bone formation and high implant survival rate comparable to bone-graft-assisted maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Further long-term studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be made.
Authors: Maria Piedad Ramírez Fernández; Sergio A Gehrke; Patricia Mazón; Jose L Calvo-Guirado; Piedad N De Aza Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Angela Sierra-Baztan; Alvaro Jiménez-Guerra; Antonio España-López; Iván Ortiz-Garcia; Enrique Núñez-Márquez; Jesús Moreno-Muñoz; José Luis Rondón-Romero; José López-López; Loreto Monsalve-Guil Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 3.390