Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewpeer-review

  1. Neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin a biomarker for bacterial-induced pharyngeal infection-A pilot study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Serum cytokine profile and clinicopathological findings in oral lichen planus, oral lichenoid lesions and stomatitis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants: A comparative retrospective case series

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Timing af implantatindsættelse efter traumebetinget tandtab

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Implant Therapy in the Esthetic Zone

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterCommunication

  4. Strategies for Treatment of Tooth Loss after Trauma to the Anterior Region of Young Patients

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterCommunication

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical and Experimental Dental Research
Volume27
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)363-374
ISSN1523-0899
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

    Research areas

  • Alveolar Bone Loss/prevention & control, Animals, Bone Substitutes, Bone Transplantation/methods, Dental Restoration Failure, Humans, Sinus Floor Augmentation/methods

ID: 56438649