Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Public Health Service, Gävle, Sweden; Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Gävleborg County Council, Gävleborg, Sweden.
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4132-9692
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark.
2018 (English)In: Implant Dentistry, ISSN 1056-6163, E-ISSN 1538-2982, Vol. 27, no 3, p. 363-374Article, review/survey (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2018. Vol. 27, no 3, p. 363-374
Keywords [en]
dental implants, guided tissue regeneration, oral surgical procedures, paranasal sinuses, publications
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-1015DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000768ISI: 000440893800014PubMedID: 29771732Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85059797459Local ID: 26609OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-1015DiVA, id: diva2:1397696
Available from: 2020-02-27 Created: 2020-02-27 Last updated: 2024-06-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Becktor, Jonas P

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Becktor, Jonas P
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Implant Dentistry
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 32 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf