ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020
Effect of amount of biomaterial used for maxillary sinus lift on volume maintenance of grafts.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiological Study on the Evolution of the Biomaterial's Image (Shape, Density, Vertical Dimensions) after the Lateral Sinus Lift.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
- Histomorphometric Evaluation of Bone-Guided Regeneration in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Using Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Composite Biomaterial: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegardless of the kind of biomaterial used for the graft, it is clear that, over time, the graft undergoes dimensional changes that could influence the final bone volume obtained, which could alter the stability of the installed implants. The aim of the present study was to compared and correlated the graft behavior with the amount (in grams) of xenogeneic and alloplastic biomaterials used in grafts for maxillary sinus lift. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used 148 CBCT images of 74 grafts from 68 maxillary sinuses lift patients in a university, post-graduate clinic. The weights of biomaterials, categorized in intervals according to amount used, were correlated with the graft volumes at V1 (10 days) and V2 (180 days). Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the possible bias effect of weight on graft maintenance.
resultsMean weights of biomaterials used were: Bio-Oss Small® (1.58g); Bio-Oss Large® (1.35g); Endobon® (0.72g); BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim® (0.96g); Cerasorb® (1.13g) and Osteogen® (2.70g). No significant differences (
conclusionsThe amounts of the biomaterials used could influence the final volume; depending on the biomaterial characteristics. Implant installation was possible with all studied grafts, although graft volume shrinkage should be considered when selecting biomaterial for sinus lift.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.