ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Sinus Lifting Procedure Using Osseodensification Versus Osteotome Technique Via Transcrestal Approach: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Osseodensification and Osteotome techniques in the transcrestal approach for sinus floor elevation in patients with posterior atrophic maxilla thereby providing valuable insights into the selection of the most appropriate approach for sinus lifting procedures. Materials and Methods: A systematic and comprehensive search of electronic databases over the last ten years, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library, was conducted using the formulated search strategy. The protocol was registered in the International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)(CRD42023455968) (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=455968). Results: Studies consistently reported varying degrees of implant stability following both Osseodensification and Osteotome techniques. The exact quantitative differences were not uniform across studies. Findings regarding marginal bone loss were mixed and found no significant differences. Residual bone height and bone gain were generally improved with both techniques, but the magnitude of improvement varied among studies. Conclusion: The review recognizes the potential advantages of Osseodensification but also highlights the heterogeneity in study designs and results, emphasizing the need for more comprehensive and standardized research to provide more definitive clinical guidance.
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.