ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Minimally invasive advantage? Patient feedback supports osseodensification in sinus lift surgery.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onGaspar J, Botelho J, Proença L et al. Osseodensification versus lateral window technique for sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement: a randomized clinical trial on patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2024; 26: 113-126. STUDY
designA randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial.
objectiveTo compare patient-reported and surgical outcomes between osseodensification (OD) and lateral window (LW) techniques for sinus floor elevation (SFE) with concurrent implant placement. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study received approval from the local Ethics Committee, followed the Helsinki Declaration and CONSORT guidelines, and obtained written informed consent from all participants. Eligibility criteria included adults aged 18 or older, in good systemic health, with a missing posterior maxillary tooth, residual bone height (RBH) ≤ 4 mm, and crestal bone width >6 mm. Patients were randomly assigned to either the OD group or the LW group. Both techniques involved simultaneous single implant placement, and all surgical and prosthetic procedures were performed by one experienced clinician. Primary outcomes were pain (measured on a visual analogue scale), and quality of life (QoL) using a modified Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire, assessed daily for the first week postoperatively. Patients also self-reported symptoms like edema, hematoma, and epistaxis using a 5-point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included implant stability (ISQ), surgery duration, complications, and analgesic use. Follow up extended for 1 year.
resultsA total of 20 participants (8 males, 12 females; mean age 47.9 years) were included in the study. Up to Day 3, pain levels were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in OD group, which also had a significantly reduced average analgesic intake throughout the first postoperative week (p < 0.001) compared to LW group. The OHIP-14 total scores were significantly lower in OD group on all days except Day 5 (p < 0.05). The mean surgical time was significantly shorter in the OD group (33 vs. 71 min; p < 0.001). Additionally, postoperative symptoms and complications were significantly fewer (p < 0.001), and the ISQ at 6 months was higher in the OD group (p < 0.05). All implants were restored using screw-retained zirconia crowns, with a 100% success rate.
conclusionBoth OD and LW techniques were effective for SFE with simultaneous implant placement in cases with RBH ≤ 4 mm. However, OD showed superior short-term outcomes, including less pain and swelling, faster surgery, lower analgesic use, and improved QoL measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40328982What 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.