Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495313›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Influence of Schneiderian membrane perforation during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach on dental implant survival rates: a retrospective study in a university setting.

Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, Cristina Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, Giulfo Farfán Navio, Luis Alfredo Díaz-Olivares, Isabel Leco-Berrocal, Cristina Barona-Dorado, Juan López-Quiles

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Jorge Cortés-Bretón BrinkmannDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain. jcortesb@ucm.es.
Cristina Madrigal Martínez-PeredaDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Giulfo Farfán NavioDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Luis Alfredo Díaz-OlivaresDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Isabel Leco-BerrocalDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Cristina Barona-DoradoDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Juan López-QuilesDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal S/N, Madrid, 28040, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to compare implant survival rates (ISR) in patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with lateral approach with and without membrane perforation. Secondary objectives were to establish the percentage of perforations in these procedures and to evaluate the influence of perforation size on ISR. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study included patients requiring MSFA with lateral approach. Cases were assigned to two groups according to the occurrence or not of perforation. The exact size of each perforation was registered. Descriptive statistics and associations between the groups were calculated.

resultsThis study analyzed data from 90 MSFA in 72 patients. Membrane perforation occurred in 24.44%. A total of 170 implants were placed; 72.35% were placed under intact membranes and 27.65% on repaired membranes. The overall ISR in MSFA procedures with intact membranes was 98.37%, and 93.62% in perforated membranes. No statistically significant relationship between groups was observed although the odds of implant failure increased by 4.125 times when perforation occurred. In turn, no statistically significant relationship was observed between perforation size and ISR.

conclusionsImplants inserted below repaired membranes had a lower ISR compared with implants inserted below intact membranes although the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, no significant statistical correlation was observed between perforation size and ISR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Membrane perforation does not have a significant influence on subsequent implant survival rates. Knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Restoration FailureNasal MucosaSinus Floor AugmentationAdultAgedDental Implantation, EndosseousFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDental ImplantsLateral approachMaxillary sinus floor augmentationMembrane perforationSurvival

Identifiers

PMID39495313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.