ArticleBMC oral health2026
Clinical evaluation of a modified maxillary sinus floor elevation technique with immediate implant placement: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and reliability of an improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique combined with immediate implant placement in patients with insufficient residual bone height in the posterior maxilla.
methodsA total of 64 edentulous patients with inadequate posterior maxillary bone height were enrolled. Among these patients, 34 underwent the improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique with simultaneous implant placement, whereas 30 underwent the conventional bone chisel technique under the same surgical protocol. Radiological and clinical assessments were performed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of the improved technique and to compare its osteogenic outcomes with those of the conventional method.
resultsThe mean immediate increase in vertical bone height was significantly greater in the improved technique group (6.016 ± 1.312 mm) than in the bone chisel group (2.797 ± 0.898 mm; P < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed between the two groups in terms of apical bone coverage along the implant axis immediately postoperatively and at the 6–10 month follow-up (P < 0.001). Similarly, peri-implant bone coverage significantly increased in the improved technique group at both time points (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the short-term implant success or survival rates between the two groups. Notably, no intraoperative maxillary sinus membrane perforations occurred in the improved technique group, and postoperative complications were limited to mild swelling and pain at the surgical site.
conclusionThe improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique yields favourable clinical outcomes in patients with severely resorbed posterior maxillae, particularly when the residual bone height is smaller than 5 mm. This technique constitutes a viable alternative to lateral window sinus augmentation for such cases.
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.