SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Clinical and radiographic evaluation for two crestal sinus lift techniques: osteotome versus osseodensification. a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 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.
- An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses on Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation: Methodological Quality, Primary-Study Overlap, and Interpretive Boundaries.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Posterior Maxillary Implant Rehabilitation Using Staged Ridge Preservation and Soft-Tissue Augmentation: A 2-Year Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMaxillary sinus floor elevation is a safe and effective surgical technique for achieving vertical bone height, performed through either a lateral or crestal approach. The latter includes both the osteotome technique and osseodensification. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of the classic crestal sinus lift technique and the osseodensification sinus lift approach in terms of the bone gain, marginal bone loss, survival rate, follow-up time and complications.
methodsThis review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across three databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed); (2) SCOPUS; and (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for evaluating risk of bias. A meta-analysis for random effects was carried out for implant survival, residual bone height and bone gain.
resultsThirteen studies were included, ten studies performed the osteotome (OST) approach and three performed the osseodensification (OD) approach, with a total of 519 sites treated. The residual bone height was 5.94 and 5.00 mm for OD and OST, respectively. For bone gain, similar results were found for both groups, being 3.37 mm for OD and 3.18 mm for OST. For both groups, the most used diameter and length of the implant was 4 and 10 mm, respectively, and the implant survival rates ranged from 94.1% to 100%. OST technique reflected a complication rate of 14.32%, compared to the OD technique, which showed a complication rate of 2.78%.
conclusionsIt can be concluded that the maxillary sinus lift by osseodesinfication approach is a safe, predictable and successful technique compared to the osteotome approach, with similar outcomes regarding bone gain which is an important parameter for implant placement.
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.