Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38363055›Full record

ReviewPeriodontology 20002025

APCs in sinus floor augmentation.

Pascal Valentini, Elena Calciolari, Sebastien Monlezun, Aliye Akcalı, Nikos Donos, Marc Quirynen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Periodontology 2000, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. APCs in sinus floor augmentation.Periodontology 2000 · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Pascal ValentiniDepartment of Implant Surgery Tattone Hospital, University of Corsica Pasquale Paoli, Institute of Health, Corte, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2712-8819
Elena CalciolariCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Sebastien MonlezunDepartment of Implant Surgery Tattone Hospital, University of Corsica Pasquale Paoli, Institute of Health, Corte, France.
Aliye AkcalıCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Nikos DonosCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4117-9073
Marc QuirynenDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, (section Periodontology), Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8253-3908
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversité de Corse Pascal Paoli · FRKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After tooth loss in the posterior area of the maxilla, sinus floor elevation is often required to compensate the vertical bone loss due to sinus pneumatization. This narrative review reports on the potential benefits of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) during this procedure. As for transcrestal approach, APCs have been used as "sole" substitute/graft. However, because of the low number of clinical trials available with PRGF, and even none for PRP, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding their efficacy. The number of studies on the use of L-PRF were outnumbered indicating good feasibility for vertical bone gain, with a high implant survival rate and a low degree of complications. PRP and PRGF have not been studied as a "single/sole" substitute for a one-stage lateral window approach, probably because of the weak physical characteristics of the membranes. L-PRF alone appears to be a predictable grafting material for lateral maxillary sinus grafting and a reduced RBH should not be considered as a risk factor. Compared to a "standard" bone substitute L-PRF shows slightly less vertical bone gain (consider enough membrane application and use of bony window as new sinus floor roof over the implant apices), enhanced early resorption (first 6 months after application), but a similar stable bone gain afterward. For a two-stage lateral window approach, APCs "alone" cannot be recommended, due to their weak withstand to the sinus pneumatization forces. APCs combined with bone substitutes seem to accelerate bone formation, without any additional benefits on the long-term new bone gain. The use of L-PRF membranes for the treatment of perforations appears to be an effective treatment option, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm this. Even though the abovementioned statements are based on large numbers of studies, additional RCTs comparing APCs with different types of grafting procedures for sinus elevation are needed.

Indexed as

Blood PlateletsPlatelet-Rich PlasmaSinus Floor AugmentationAlveolar Bone LossBone SubstitutesHumansBone Substitutesautogenous platelet concentrateslateral window techniquemembrane perforationSchneiderian membranesinus floor augmentationsinus graftingsinus lifttranscrestal technique

Identifiers

PMID38363055
PMCPMC11808425
OpenAlexW4391883196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.