Trial reportJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Impact of biomaterials on intra-sinus bone changes around dental implants following indirect sinus augmentation: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of different biomaterials - without graft, venous blood, injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF), and synthetic graft on peri-implant intra-sinus bone changes around dental implants following indirect sinus lift using the Crestal Approach Sinus Kit (CAS Kit), assessed three-dimensionally using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at baseline and after 6 months. SETTINGS AND
designA randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics, involving 64 patients aged 18-60 years with residual crestal bone height of 4-6 mm. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-four participants were randomly allocated into four groups ( n = 16 each): without graft, venous blood, i-PRF, and synthetic graft using a computer-generated randomization sequence prepared by an independent investigator. Allocation was concealed by sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Indirect sinus lift was performed using the CAS kit, and implants were placed simultaneously via a crestal approach. Intra-sinus peri-implant bone changes at the implant apex and at the buccal and palatal aspects (apex, middle, and sinus floor levels) were assessed using CBCT at baseline and after 6 months. Implant survival was evaluated as a secondary outcome. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) were calculated, and intergroup comparisons were performed using the one-way analysis of variance. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Descriptive statistics (mean±SD) were calculated, and intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsIn coronal sections, Groups 1 and 2 (without graft, venous blood) showed minimal and comparable bone gain. Group 3 (i-PRF) demonstrated moderate improvement, while Group 4 (synthetic graft) achieved the highest bone values, particularly at the apex, buccal-apical, and palatal-apical sites. Analysis confirmed that Group 4 significantly outperformed all others, and i-PRF consistently exceeded without graft and venous blood. Sagittal analysis showed a similar pattern: Groups 1 and 2 displayed negligible change, Group 3 had intermediate gains, and Group 4 demonstrated substantial bone formation, especially at mesial and distal apical sites. No implants were lost during the 6-month follow-up.
conclusionsSynthetic grafts demonstrated the greatest intra-sinus bone gain at 6 months. This increased bone formation may enhance apical bone support and potentially improve implant stability in cases with limited residual bone height. I-PRF showed moderate bone gain, which, although statistically inferior to synthetic grafts, may still be clinically beneficial as a cost-effective and autologous adjunct. Thus, while synthetic grafts provided the highest statistical and clinical benefit, i-PRF may serve as a clinically viable alternative when synthetic grafting is not feasible.
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.