Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan;47(1):103-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.001. Epub 2017 May 22.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term studies (five or more years) assessing maxillary sinus floor augmentation.

Author information

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. Electronic address: thomas.jensen@rn.dk.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
3
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Public Health Service, Gävle, Sweden; Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Gävleborg County Council, Gävleborg, Sweden.
4
Department of Biomaterials, BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Centre, Institute for Surgical Science, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, NU-Hospital Organization, Trollhättan, Sweden.
5
Unit of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Abstract

The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in long-term (≥5 years) implant treatment outcomes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft compared to a mixture of autogenous bone graft and bone substitutes or bone substitutes alone. A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English between January 1, 1990 and October 1, 2016 were included. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The survival of suprastructures has never been compared within the same study. The 5-year implant survival after MSFA with autogenous bone graft was 97%, compared to 95% for Bio-Oss; the reduction in vertical height of the augmented sinus was equivalent with the two treatment modalities. Non-comparative studies demonstrated high survival rates for suprastructures and implants regardless of the grafting material used. Meta-analysis revealed an overall estimated patient-based implant survival of 95% (confidence interval 0.92-0.96). High implant stability quotient values, high patient satisfaction, and limited peri-implant marginal bone loss were revealed in non-comparative studies. No long-term randomized controlled trial comparing the different treatment modalities was identified. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.

KEYWORDS:

alveolar ridge augmentation; dental implants; oral surgical procedures; review; sinus floor augmentation

PMID:
28545806
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center