Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the Journal
Editorial office
Editorial board
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Ethical standards and procedures
Most read articles
Instructions for authors
Article Processing Charge (APC)
Regulations of paying article processing charge (APC)
TRANSPLANTOLOGY / SYSTEMATIC REVIEW/META-ANALYSIS
Clinical evaluation of maxillary sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis
1
Department of Stomatology, Suzhou Wujiang District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Suzhou, China
Submission date: 2023-07-25
Final revision date: 2023-10-21
Acceptance date: 2023-10-30
Online publication date: 2024-03-20
Corresponding author
Jiayi Chen
Department of stomatology, Suzhou Wujiang District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Suzhou, PR China, China
Department of stomatology, Suzhou Wujiang District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Suzhou, PR China, China
Arch Med Sci 2024;20(2):384-401
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Our goal was to systematically review the current evidence comparing the relative effectiveness of two maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) approaches (internal and external) without bone grafts with that of conventional/grafted MSFE in patients undergoing implantation in the posterior maxilla.
Material and Methods:
Medical databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1980 and May 2023. A manual search of implant-related journals was also performed. Studies published in English that reported the clinical outcomes of MSFE with or without bone material were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook Risk Assessment Tool. Meta-analyses and trial sequence analyses were performed on the included trials. Meta-regression analysis was performed using pre-selected covariates to account for substantial heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence for clinical outcomes was assessed using GRADEpro GDT online (Guideline Development Tool).
Results:
Seventeen studies, including 547 sinuses and 696 implants, were pooled for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between MSFE without bone grafts and conventional MSFE in terms of the implant survival rate in the short term (n = 11, I2 = 0%, risk difference (RD): 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI): –0.01–0.07, p = 0.17, required information size (RIS) = 307). Although conventional MSFE had a higher endo-sinus bone gain (n = 13, I2 = 89%, weighted mean difference (WMD): –1.24, 95% CI: –1.91– –0.57, p = 0.0003, RIS = 461), this was not a determining factor in implant survival. No difference in perforation (n = 13, I2 = 0%, RD = 0.03, 95% CI: –0.02–0.09, p = 0.99, RIS = 223) and marginal bone loss (n = 4, I2 = 0%, WMD = 0.05, 95% CI: –0.14–0.23, p = 0.62, no RIS) was detected between the two groups using meta-analysis. The pooled results of the implant stability quotient between the two groups were not robust on sensitivity analysis. Because of the limited studies reporting on the visual analogue scale, surgical time, treatment costs, and bone density, qualitative analysis was conducted for these outcomes.
Conclusions:
This systematic review revealed that both non-graft and grafted MSFE had high implant survival rates. Owing to the moderate strength of the evidence and short-term follow-up, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Our goal was to systematically review the current evidence comparing the relative effectiveness of two maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) approaches (internal and external) without bone grafts with that of conventional/grafted MSFE in patients undergoing implantation in the posterior maxilla.
Material and Methods:
Medical databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1980 and May 2023. A manual search of implant-related journals was also performed. Studies published in English that reported the clinical outcomes of MSFE with or without bone material were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook Risk Assessment Tool. Meta-analyses and trial sequence analyses were performed on the included trials. Meta-regression analysis was performed using pre-selected covariates to account for substantial heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence for clinical outcomes was assessed using GRADEpro GDT online (Guideline Development Tool).
Results:
Seventeen studies, including 547 sinuses and 696 implants, were pooled for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between MSFE without bone grafts and conventional MSFE in terms of the implant survival rate in the short term (n = 11, I2 = 0%, risk difference (RD): 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI): –0.01–0.07, p = 0.17, required information size (RIS) = 307). Although conventional MSFE had a higher endo-sinus bone gain (n = 13, I2 = 89%, weighted mean difference (WMD): –1.24, 95% CI: –1.91– –0.57, p = 0.0003, RIS = 461), this was not a determining factor in implant survival. No difference in perforation (n = 13, I2 = 0%, RD = 0.03, 95% CI: –0.02–0.09, p = 0.99, RIS = 223) and marginal bone loss (n = 4, I2 = 0%, WMD = 0.05, 95% CI: –0.14–0.23, p = 0.62, no RIS) was detected between the two groups using meta-analysis. The pooled results of the implant stability quotient between the two groups were not robust on sensitivity analysis. Because of the limited studies reporting on the visual analogue scale, surgical time, treatment costs, and bone density, qualitative analysis was conducted for these outcomes.
Conclusions:
This systematic review revealed that both non-graft and grafted MSFE had high implant survival rates. Owing to the moderate strength of the evidence and short-term follow-up, the results should be interpreted with caution.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Hirschfeld L, Wasserman B. A long-term survey of tooth loss in 600 treated periodontal patients. J Periodontol 1978; 49: 225-37.
2.
Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31: 820-8.
3.
Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 1986; 30: 207-29.
4.
Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980; 38: 613-6.
5.
Taschieri S, Lolato A, Testori T, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Short dental implants as compared to maxillary sinus augmentation procedure for the rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla: three-year results of a randomized clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 9-20.
6.
Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium 1994; 15: 152-62.
7.
Rosen PS, Summers R, Mellado JR, et al. The bone-added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique: multicenter retrospective report of consecutively treated patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 853-8.
8.
Herrero-Climent M, Santos-García R, Jaramillo-Santos R, et al. Assessment of Osstell ISQ’s reliability for implant stability measurement: a cross-sectional clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18: e877-82.
9.
Lundgren S, Andersson S, Sennerby L. Spontaneous bone formation in the maxillary sinus after removal of a cyst: coincidence or consequence? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5: 78-81.
10.
Riben C, Thor A. Follow-up of the sinus membrane elevation technique for maxillary sinus implants without the use of graft material. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18: 895-905.
11.
Lundgren S, Cricchio G, Palma VC, Salata LA, Sennerby L. Sinus membrane elevation and simultaneous insertion of dental implants: a new surgical technique in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Periodontol 2000 2008; 47: 193-205.
12.
Lie SAN, Claessen RMMA, Leung CAW, Merten HA, Kessler PAWH. Non-grafted versus grafted sinus lift procedures for implantation in the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 51: 122-32.
13.
Pérez-Martínez S, Martorell-Calatayud L, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, García-Mira B, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Indirect sinus lift without bone graft material: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: e316-9.
14.
Moraschini V, Uzeda MG, Sartoretto SC, Calasans-Maia MD. Maxillary sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement without grafting materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 636-47.
15.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021; 18: e1003583.
16.
Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
17.
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013: The GRADE Working Group; 2013. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook.
18.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-34.
19.
Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). 2017. Available at: https://ctu.dk/tsa/.
20.
Altintas NY, Senel FC, Kayıpmaz S, Taskesen F, Pampu AA. Comparative radiologic analyses of newly formed bone after maxillary sinus augmentation with and without bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71: 1520-30.
21.
Zahedpasha A, Ghassemi A, Bijani A, Haghanifar S, Majidi MS, Ghorbani ZM. Comparison of bone formation after sinus membrane lifting without graft or using bone substitute “histologic and radiographic evaluation”. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79: 1246-54.
22.
Borges FL, Dias RO, Piattelli A, et al. Simultaneous sinus membrane elevation and dental implant placement without bone graft: a 6-month follow-up study. J Periodontol 2011; 82: 403-12.
23.
Felice P, Scarano A, Pistilli R, et al. A comparison of two techniques to augment maxillary sinuses using the lateral window approach: rigid synthetic resorbable barriers versus anorganic bovine bone. Five-month post-loading clinical and histological results of a pilot randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2009; 2: 293-306.
24.
Fouad W, Osman A, Atef M, Hakam M. Guided maxillary sinus floor elevation using deproteinized bovine bone versus graftless Schneiderian membrane elevation with simultaneous implant placement: randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 424-33.
25.
Starch-Jensen T, Bruun NH. Patient’s perception of recovery after sinus membrane elevation and blood coagulum compared with 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft and deproteinized porcine bone mineral. Secondary outcomes from a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022; 33: 65-77.
26.
Starch-Jensen T, Bruun NH, Spin-Neto R. Endo-sinus bone gain following osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation with Bio-Oss Collagen compared with no grafting material: a one-year single-blind randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023; 52: 1205-15.
27.
Ranaan J, Bassir SH, Andrada L, et al. Clinical efficacy of the graft free slit-window sinus floor elevation procedure: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 1107-19.
28.
Khaled H, Atef M, Hakam M. Maxillary sinus floor elevation using hydroxyapatite nano particles vs tenting technique with simultaneous implant placement: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 1241-52.
29.
Maximiano Millán A, Bravo Álvarez R, Plana Montori M, et al. Assessment of the simultaneous use of biomaterials in transalveolar sinus floor elevation: prospective randomized clinical trial in humans. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 1888.
30.
Nedir R, Nurdin N, Khoury P, et al. Osteotome sinus floor elevation with and without grafting material in the severely atrophic maxilla. A 1-year prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 1257-64.
31.
Nedir R, Nurdin N, Abi Najm S, El Hage M, Bischof M. Short implants placed with or without grafting into atrophic sinuses: the 5-year results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 877-86.
32.
Qian SJ, Mo JJ, Si MS, Qiao SC, Shi JY, Lai HC. Long-term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: the 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47: 1016-25.
33.
Scarano A, de Oliveira PS, Traini T, Lorusso F. Sinus membrane elevation with heterologous cortical lamina: a randomized study of a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation without bone graft. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11: 1457.
34.
Si MS, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Mo JJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without grafting: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40: 396-403.
35.
Trinh HA, Dam VV, Le B, Pittayapat P, Thunyakitpisal P. Indirect sinus augmentation with and without the addition of a biomaterial: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Implant Dent 2019; 28: 571-7.
36.
Zhang S, Lu X, Chen Z. Clinical effects of simultaneous implant placement in hydraulic maxillary sinus lift without bone grafting. Altern Ther Health Med 2022; 28: 111-9.
37.
Srouji S, Kizhner T, Ben David D, Riminucci M, Bianco P, Livne E. The Schneiderian membrane contains osteoprogenitor cells: in vivo and in vitro study. Calcif Tissue Int 2009; 84: 138-45.
38.
Nasr S, Slot DE, Bahaa S, Dörfer CE, Fawzy El-Sayed KM. Dental implants combined with sinus augmentation: what is the merit of bone grafting? A systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44: 1607-17.
39.
Chen Y, Xu X, Tan Z, Ye C, Zhao Q, Chen Y. Age-related BMAL1 change affects mouse bone marrow stromal cell proliferation and osteo-differentiation potential. Arch Med Sci 2012; 8: 30-8.
40.
Asai S, Shimizu Y, Ooya K. Maxillary sinus augmentation model in rabbits: effect of occluded nasal ostium on new bone formation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 405-9.
41.
Schwarz F, Sager M, Ferrari D, Herten M, Wieland M, Becker J. Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at non-submerged and submerged chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 64-75.
42.
Eftekhar Ashtiani R, Hadi A, Nouri F, et al. The role of current herbal extracts in bone regeneration through dental implants: in vitro/in vivo/clinical studies. Arch Med Sci 2023; 19: 1653-61.
43.
Tosta M, Cortes AR, Corrêa L, Pinto Ddos S Jr, Tumenas I, Katchburian E. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of a synthetic bone substitute for maxillary sinus grafting in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 866-70.
44.
Kaur M, Singh K. Review on titanium and titanium-based alloys as biomaterials for orthopaedic applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2019; 102: 844-62.
45.
Tenkumo T, Aobulikasimu A, Asou Y, et al. Proanthocyanidin-rich grape seed extract improves bone loss, bone healing, and implant osseointegration in ovariectomized animals. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 8812.
46.
Pikos MA. Maxillary sinus membrane repair: report of a technique for large perforations. Implant Dent 1999; 8: 29-34.
47.
Beck-Broichsitter BE, Westhoff D, Behrens E, Wiltfang J, Becker ST. Impact of surgical management in cases of intraoperative membrane perforation during a sinus lift procedure: a follow-up on bone graft stability and implant success. Int J Implant Dent 2018; 4: 6.
48.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11-25.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1896-9151 |
| ISSN: | 1734-1922 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
