To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

A systematic review and m… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Contact form








 


Note! If you want an answer on a question you must specify your email address




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

Review article
Authors T. Starch-Jensen
H. Aludden
M. Hallman
Christer Dahlin
A. E. Christensen
A. Mordenfeld
Published in International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 47
Pages 103-116
ISSN 0901-5027
Publication year 2018
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 103-116
Language en
Links doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.001
Keywords alveolar ridge augmentation, dental implants, oral surgical procedures, review, sinus floor augmentation
Subject categories Biomaterials Science

Abstract

© 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 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.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?