ReviewCureus2026
Effects of Maxillary Sinus Augmentation on Endosseous Dental Implant Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is a procedure for rehabilitating the atrophic posterior maxilla, but the optimal surgical technique and its long-term impact on implant survival remain debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize the available evidence on the long-term survival of endosseous dental implants placed in augmented maxillary sinuses. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search of major electronic databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies reporting implant survival rates after MSFA with at least one year of follow-up. The primary outcome was implant failure rate. The secondary outcome was marginal bone loss (MBL). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. A random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp adjustment was used for meta-analysis, employing the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation for proportions. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to explore heterogeneity. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Twenty-two studies, comprising 6,860 implants, were included. The pooled implant failure rate was 3% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 2-5%), corresponding to a cumulative survival rate of 97%. Significant heterogeneity was observed (I
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.