Trial reportClinical oral implants research2025
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1-Year Multicenter, Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. 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.
- Autogenous bone grafting does not enhance bone repair in maxillary sinuses grafted with β-tricalcium phosphate: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Effects of Maxillary Sinus Augmentation on Endosseous Dental Implant Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Smart biomaterials in restorative dentistry: Recent advances and future perspectives.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare autogenous bone (AB) harvested from the mandibular ramus or a mixture of bovine bone mineral (BBM) with 25% locally harvested autogenous bone chips from the maxilla for maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA). MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients requiring bilateral MSFA and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Maxillary sinuses were randomly assigned (1:1) to one of the two groups: MSFA + AB (AB group) or MSFA + AB + BBM (BBM group). AB was harvested from the mandible (AB group) or locally during MSFA (BBM group). Implants were placed after 4-6 months of healing and loaded 4-6 months later. Patients were examined at baseline (1 month post-loading) and 12 months post-loading. Outcome measures included clinician- and patient-reported outcomes.
resultsFifty patients with 198 implants were included (AB = 99, BBM = 99). Twelve implants failed before loading (AB = 6, BBM = 6), and three failed post-loading (AB = 2, BBM = 1). Implant survival was 92.9% (AB group) and 93.9% (BBM group) at 12 months post-loading, with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.28-2.54; p = 0.770). Implant success was 98.8% (AB group) and 97.6% (BBM group), with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.03-8.05; p = 0.620). No significant differences in marginal bone loss or clinical parameters were found between groups (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction significantly improved at follow-ups compared to screening (p = 0.005).
conclusionImplants placed after MSFA with AB or BBM showed comparable results. This indicates that MSFA can be successfully performed without requiring AB from an additional donor site, potentially reducing patient morbidity.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register with number NL59578.078.16 on 09-05-2017. The study start date was on 21-08-2017.
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.