Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{7c8a67ee5a4e47dbbbd7a248a2eda9d1,
title = "Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses of no differences in implant treatment outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with synthetic bone substitutes (SBS) compared with other grafting materials applying the lateral window technique.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS.CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.",
keywords = "Alveolar Bone Loss/prevention & control, Animals, Bone Substitutes, Bone Transplantation/methods, Dental Restoration Failure, Humans, Sinus Floor Augmentation/methods",
author = "Thomas Starch-Jensen and Arne Mordenfeld and Becktor, {Jonas Peter} and Jensen, {Simon Storg{\aa}rd}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1097/ID.0000000000000768",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "363--374",
journal = "Clinical and Experimental Dental Research",
issn = "1523-0899",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials

T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AU - Starch-Jensen, Thomas

AU - Mordenfeld, Arne

AU - Becktor, Jonas Peter

AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses of no differences in implant treatment outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with synthetic bone substitutes (SBS) compared with other grafting materials applying the lateral window technique.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS.CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses of no differences in implant treatment outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with synthetic bone substitutes (SBS) compared with other grafting materials applying the lateral window technique.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS.CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.

KW - Alveolar Bone Loss/prevention & control

KW - Animals

KW - Bone Substitutes

KW - Bone Transplantation/methods

KW - Dental Restoration Failure

KW - Humans

KW - Sinus Floor Augmentation/methods

U2 - 10.1097/ID.0000000000000768

DO - 10.1097/ID.0000000000000768

M3 - Review

VL - 27

SP - 363

EP - 374

JO - Clinical and Experimental Dental Research

JF - Clinical and Experimental Dental Research

SN - 1523-0899

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 56438649