Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39350529›Full record

ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2024

Clinical and radiographic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years.

Ann M Decker, Sandra Stuhr, Tiziano Testori, Hom-Lay Wang

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Ann M DeckerDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7508-2096
Sandra StuhrDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3473-2149
Tiziano TestoriDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-1799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaxillary sinus floor elevation is a surgical procedure intended to increase the volume of the bone vertically to accommodate dental implant placement. This intervention is frequently required for implant installation in the posterior maxilla, where the bone may be insufficient for securing implants of necessary length and stability. Sinus floor elevation can be completed either through a direct approach with a "window" through the lateral wall of the alveolar ridge or an indirect "transcrestal/transalveolar" sinus floor elevation (TSFE), which accesses the sinus floor through the crest of the edentulous ridge. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive scoping review of research conducted over the past 25 years on TSFE, specifically.

methodsA literature search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this PRISMA-ScR-compliant scoping review was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these studies were extracted. Primary outcome measures included radiographic bone levels and implant failure >5 years. Secondary outcome measures included implant stability at time of placement and complications. Interventions reported in the selected studies were grouped based on treatment modality, which were then compared with the control therapy (traditional osteotome technique) after a minimum of 12 months healing period.

resultsOur search yielded 633 records, and after deduplication, 574 of these were screened. Application of the eligibility criteria led to the inclusion of 37 articles in the final selection. Case selection for included studies enrolling subjects: Four different transcrestal sinus elevation treatment modalities were identified: (a) osteotome, (b) piezoelectric surgery, (c) osseodensification, and (d) hydraulic techniques. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, no superior approach for TSFE could be identified. Overall, all techniques demonstrated high implant survival rates.

conclusionComprehensive understanding of the patient's medical history, available armamentarium, and post-operative complications/management strategies are all essential to the completion of a successful TSFE approach for implant placement in the posterior maxilla, regardless of the treatment modality used.

Indexed as

Sinus Floor AugmentationDental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsHumansDental Implantsalveolar bone lossbone regenerationdental implantsscoping reviewsinus floor augmentation

Identifiers

PMID39350529
PMCPMC11660538

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.