ArticleBMC oral health2026
Maxillary sinus-related adverse event reports associated with endosseous dental implants in the FDA MAUDE database: a retrospective text-mining analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMaxillary sinus-related adverse events are clinically relevant in posterior maxillary implant therapy, but their reporting patterns in public postmarket surveillance data remain incompletely characterized.
methodsThis retrospective text-mining study analyzed FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) reports from 2015 to 2025 involving endosseous dental implants with product code DZE. Device records were linked to FOITEXT (MAUDE narrative text) records and Master Event fields by MDR_REPORT_KEY. Sinus-related narratives were identified using staged keyword rules, refined into high-specificity candidates, classified into event categories, assessed for duplicate and template-like text, and validated using independent blinded dual review of a stratified quality-control sample.
resultsAmong 3,386,630 unique DZE reports, the workflow retained 6,386 high-specificity maxillary sinus-related candidates. Independent blinded dual review of a 449-record stratified validation sample showed substantial agreement for inclusion status (Cohen's κ = 0.778) and almost perfect agreement for event-category assignment (Cohen's κ = 0.907). The conservative consensus-confirmed positive predictive value (PPV) was 96.88% (435/449). Sinus membrane perforation narratives were the predominant rule-based report category, but this pattern should be interpreted as a reporting and documentation pattern rather than a true clinical frequency. Unique-text sensitivity analysis reduced repeated narratives but did not materially change the category-level pattern.
conclusionsThis study characterizes maxillary sinus-related reporting patterns in a passive postmarket surveillance database. The findings highlight the value and limitations of transparent text-mining workflows for implant-related adverse event surveillance and should not be interpreted as clinical incidence, comparative risk, manufacturer performance, or causality.
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.