ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of biomechanical characteristics of the Schneiderian membrane with different transcrestal sinus floor elevation techniques using three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A functional Schneiderian membrane-preserving maxillectomy: leveraging mucosal bone-forming potential and clinical effectiveness verification.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Clinical evaluation of a modified maxillary sinus floor elevation technique with immediate implant placement: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to establish a three-dimensional finite element (FE) hydraulic pressure technique model and compare the biomechanical characteristics of the osteotome technique and the hydraulic pressure technique using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).
methodsThree FE models were created: the hydraulic pressure technique (M1), the osteotome technique with a Ø 1.6-mm osteotome (M2), and the osteotome technique with a Ø 3.0-mm osteotome (M3) models. Three models were simulated via computer-aided design software, with the sinus membrane elevated to 1, 3 and 5 mm, after which the required loading force was recorded. Stress distribution, including the equivalent von Mises stress, tensile stress, compressive stress, shear stress, as well as strain (i.e., sinus membrane displacement in horizontal dimensions) of the three models were subsequently examined and statistically compared.
resultsOverall, the required loading force, stress and strain increased as the elevation height increased. The loading force required to elevate the sinus membrane to 1,3 and 5 mm in M1 was 24.9 kPa, 77.1 kPa and 130 kPa, comparing 32.5 kPa, 112. 9 kPa and 200.8 kPa in M2 as well as 54.5 kPa, 160.6 kPa and 273.2 kPa in M3. Under the same elevation height, M1 exhibited the least von Mises stress (P<0.001), as well as the largest horizontal sinus membrane displacement (P<0.001).
conclusionsIt can be seen from the FEA results that the hydraulic pressure technique enables a greater portion of the sinus membrane to detach from the sinus floor while exerting less stress on the mucosa when the sinus membrane is elevated up to 5 mm. Based on this study, the hydraulic pressure technique was found to be safer and more effective than the osteotome technique under the same elevation height.
Indexed as
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.