Sinus Floor Elevation Using Osteotomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2005 ◽  
Vol 76 (8) ◽  
pp. 1237-1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Emmerich ◽  
Wael Att ◽  
Christian Stappert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Sinus Floor

scholarly journals Graft-Free Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 550-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deng-Hui Duan ◽  
Jia-Hui Fu ◽  
Wei Qi ◽  
Yi Du ◽  
Jie Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation

scholarly journals Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Yan ◽  
Xinyu Wu ◽  
Meiying Su ◽  
Fang Hua ◽  
Bin Shi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document