Introduction
Oroantral fistulas (OAF) are abnormal communications between the oral cavity and the maxillary sinus that primarily occur as a complication of posterior teeth extraction or as the secondary outcome of trauma, sinus infections, and other soft and hard tissue pathology [ 1 ]. These dental and maxillofacial defects can affect quality of life and lead to symptoms such as nasal regurgitation, sinusitis, and discomfort. Restoring patients’ quality of life and preventing subsequent complications requires a competent OAF closure [ 2 ]. Small-sized or intermittent OAFs may close/heal spontaneously, but persistent and larger fistulas require surgical interventions, either with or without the use of intermediate biocompatible material. Local flaps and the use of bone grafts have been traditionally used for OAF surgical closures [ 3 ]. Digitization technologies incorporating the combined use of bioprinting, computer-assisted designing, and artificial intelligence have resulted in modern tissue engineering and regenerative medicine [ 4 ]. These technological shifts have also brought promising alternative biomaterials for closing OAF and related defects, thereby substantially improving healing, and include biomaterials such as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), collagen-based products, bone grafts, and various membranes [ 5 ]. Many biomaterials that are currently used for OAF closures have been primarily developed for other oral and maxillofacial or general surgical applications rather than having been specifically engineered for OAF management; however, their favorable healing properties have led to their adaptations for OAF closures. OAF closures, unlike their use in other non-OAF conditions, present additional challenges, including promoting mucosal and bone healing in potentially infected environments, serving as a barrier between the maxillary sinus and oral cavity, integrating dual tissues (sinus lining and oral mucosa), and withstanding the mechanical stresses associated with oral functions [ 6 ]. Given the rapid evolution of bioengineered biomaterials and surgical techniques and the various clinical conditions associated with OAF closure, a systematic review of the current literature is essential to estimate relative success rates, evaluate patient outcomes, identify potential complications, and guide advancements in patient care and oral surgical practice. Case reports and relevant case series, although limited by their study design, do provide valuable educational resources, hypothesis generation, and rare condition documentation, in addition to providing invaluable information about the early clinical application and patient-related outcomes of OAF biomaterials in actual clinical settings. Moreover, in the context of personalized medicine, which involves highly individualized treatments, case reports and series provide additional insights into individual variations, whether related to tissue responses or potential complications [ 7 ]. By systematically examining the reported outcomes, complications, and determinants of success associated with different biomaterials used in OAF closure, this review would present clinicians with a current comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness, competency, and safety profile of modern biomaterials in the treatment of OAFs. The conclusions drawn from this comprehensive review will also serve to inform evidence-based clinical practice and direct forthcoming research endeavors concerning the advancement, applications, and precautions of biomaterials for OAF closure. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the clinical outcomes and challenges of various biomaterials that were originally developed for periodontal regeneration, sinus augmentation, and general wound healing for affecting the clinical closure of OAFs and oroantral communication. The review focused particularly on case reports and series documenting infection-prone environments, dual-tissue barrier functions, and mechanical stresses associated with oral function..
This systematic review follows the standardized recommendations for reporting the findings of systematic reviews as outlined in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 8 ]. The purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive and transparent methodology along with the relevant findings, to ensure future reproducibility and reliability.
Methods
Research Question and Study Design
For this systematic review, the research question addressed was “What recent biomaterials have been used for closing an OAF, as reported in case reports and series published between 2015 and 2025?” As per the requirements, the protocol for this study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, with reference number CRD420251089886.
Inclusion Criteria
Case reports and series involving the reporting of 1 or more OAF cases exclusively describing the use of biomaterials for surgical closure of OAF and published from January 1, 2015, till February 28, 2025, were included for the systematic review. Studies were included if they were published in peer-reviewed journals. Cases with clearly defined outcome measures, including complete fistula closure, were included.
Exclusion Criteria
Studies were excluded if they failed to report the outcomes of OAF closure. Review articles of any type, editorials, and letters to the editor were also excluded. Studies conducted on animal models were excluded. Studies that did not involve the use of any biomaterials were excluded.
Search Strategy
A comprehensive search was conducted in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The following search terms were used, combined with Boolean operators: “(“Oroantral fistula” OR “oroantral communication”) AND (“collagen” OR “PRF” OR “platelet-rich fibrin” OR “bone graft” OR “hydroxyapatite” OR “titanium mesh” OR “amniotic membrane” OR “CAD-CAM” OR “scaffold” OR “materials”) AND (“case report” OR “case series”)”. To ensure a thorough search, we also hand-searched the relevant individual journals, confirmed dates of publication, reviewed the reference lists of included studies, and consulted with experts in the field.
Screening Process
Two independent reviewers (FMA, NO) conducted the required screening process. First, the reviewers screened respective titles and abstracts (structured and unstructured) to identify the potentially relevant studies to be included in the systematic review. Then, the selected studies were independently reviewed to further establish their eligibility against the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All disagreements between the reviewers were comprehensively resolved through proper discussion between reviewers; when a consensus was not reached, a third reviewer (AMM) was consulted for determination of including or excluding the relevant article.
Data Extraction
A standardized data extraction form was used to collect relevant information from the included studies. The extracted data included study characteristics (author, year, journal), patient demographics (age, sex, medical history), OAF characteristics (etiology, size, location), and a description of the biomaterial(s) used. The primary outcome was OAF closure (success or failure). The secondary outcomes were healing time, complications, recurrence, and patient-reported outcomes.
Quality Assessment
The quality of the included case reports was assessed using a validated tool, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for case reports and case series [ 9 ]. Two reviewers conducted the quality assessment of the studies (FMA, NO). Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer (AMM).
Data Synthesis
A narrative synthesis of the findings was performed. The data were synthesized by categorizing biomaterials and techniques used for OAF closure, describing the outcomes and complications reported in the studies, and exploring potential factors influencing the success of OAF closure.
Study Selection
This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, adapted for case reports and case series ( Figure 1 ).
Results
Study Characteristics
This review was conducted by using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The initial search yielded 189 case records, which were subsequently refined through the removal of duplicates, using the screening of titles and abstracts. After a comprehensive evaluation of the full texts, 18 studies ( Table 1 ) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were thus integrated into the review [ 10 – 27 ]; alternately, 6 studies were excluded, primarily due to divergences in their primary objectives or because they used only flap techniques without any biomaterial application.
Patient Demographics
The population under investigation exhibited a broad age spectrum, ranging from 20 to 77 years, with a calculated mean age of 46 years ( Table 1 ) [ 10 – 27 ]. The available sex distribution was 12 male and 7 female treated patients ( Table 1 ) [ 10 – 27 ]. Reported patient factors included smoking and documented systemic conditions, such as multiple myeloma, pericarditis, long-term steroid use, and squamous cell carcinoma.
OAF Etiology and Characteristics
Post-extraction complications were reported to be the most common cited cause for OAF formation, constituting 50% (9/18) of the overall documented instances. Other causes of OAF included sinus graft infections (18.75%, 3/16), outcomes from radicular cyst treatment, removal of dental osseointegrated implants, implant explantation, projectile wounds from gunshot injuries, and osteoradionecrosis. OAF dimensions (size), when specified, varied from 4 mm to over 20 mm, with descriptors such as “large”, “extensive”, and “chronic” also used. The maxillary posterior dentition was the primary site of OAFs, and specific tooth numbers were identified in most cases.
Biomaterials and Treatment Modalities
A wide range of mucosal and bone biomaterial types, along with different treatment modalities, were clinically utilized in the included studies. PRF [ 10 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 23 ] and advanced PRF [ 10 ] were used in 5 (31.25%) of a total of 18 studies, thereby indicating the higher prevalence and use of autologous materials. Combination therapies involving multiple biomaterials were frequently observed [ 15 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 24 ]. Other materials included computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) allogenic bone blocks [ 11 ], collagen cones and membranes [ 27 ], cortical bone shell grafts [ 13 ], hydroxyapatite and ribose [ 14 ], sinus bone grafts and allografts [ 13 , 17 ], chin grafts [ 21 ], buccal fat pads [ 16 , 21 ], buccal advancement flaps [ 14 – 19 , 21 ], and human amniotic membranes [ 25 ].
Follow-up and Patient Outcomes
Follow-up periods observed were 7 days [ 12 , 14 , 16 , 25 , 27 ], 1 to 2 weeks [ 19 ], 1 month [ 11 , 15 ], and 3 to 6 months [ 17 , 21 ], with 7 days being the most common follow-up duration. Consistently, patient-based outcomes indicated successful OAF closure. Patients in these case reports and series had frequently reported symptom relief [ 10 , 12 , 14 – 16 , 19 ], with subsequent pain and/or discomfort alleviation when pain/discomfort was associated [ 10 , 14 – 16 , 19 ], the cessation of nasal regurgitation [ 10 , 12 , 14 – 16 , 19 , 25 ], and the resolution of air leakage [ 12 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 25 ]. Several cases reported describing the healing process as completely “uneventful” [ 11 , 12 , 14 – 17 , 19 , 21 , 25 , 27 ], thereby indicating a more favorable patient response attributed to the diverse treatment modalities used.
Geographic Distribution
The studies considered, published between 2015 and 2025, encompassed a wide geographical scope, including Poland [ 10 ], Egypt [ 11 ], Bulgaria [ 12 ], South Korea [ 13 , 15 , 17 ], Colombia [ 14 ], India [ 16 , 21 , 25 ], the United States [ 18 , 22 ], Iraq [ 19 ], Taiwan [ 20 ], Saudi Arabia [ 23 ], Brazil [ 24 ], and Russia [ 26 ].
Variability in Reporting
Although positive outcomes were generally observed, there were reporting variations for the size (length and sample size), clinical location, and periodic follow-up durations for OAF closures. This indicates that there must be standardized documentation in future studies that will improve and enhance reproducibility and comparability, thus strengthening the reliability and validity of these studies.
JBI Critical Appraisal
The reported quality of the included case reports and case series was evaluated using the standard JBI critical appraisal checklists [ 9 ]. The relative findings from this critical appraisal are presented in Table 2 , which evaluates individual studies across 7 key areas: patient attributes, causal relationship, condition presentation, intervention/exposure, outcomes, alternative explanations, and key conclusions.
Overall Quality Assessment
All 18 included studies had adequately addressed the vital clinical categories of patient attributes, underlying causal relationship, planned intervention/exposure, relative outcomes, and significant conclusions, prompting a consistent “yes” score in these categories. The studies also demonstrated clear descriptions of patient characteristics, a plausible link between the exposure and the outcome, detailed information about the interventions, well-defined outcomes, and relevant clinical implications.
Condition Presentation
All the studies (18/18) offered a clear and transparent presentation of the patient’s condition, thereby scoring a “yes” in this domain.
Alternative Explanations
A common limitation across the included studies was how well they dealt with their respective alternative explanations. All 18 studies received an “unclear” rating in this area. This suggests that the studies did not fully explore or discuss possible alternative explanations for the results they found. This is a common issue in case reports and case series, mainly because of their specific research design.
Key Conclusions
The JBI critical appraisal indicated that the incorporated studies largely conformed to the essential standards for reporting case reports and case series. These studies presented lucid patient information, established causal links, described interventions in detail, reported outcomes, and communicated pertinent conclusions. Nevertheless, the recurring “unclear” rating concerning alternative explanations underscores a notable constraint. Although the studies definitely offered valuable clinical perspectives, there is still further scope for enhancing the accounting for potential confounding variables while at the same time offering exhaustive, detailed, and comprehensively specific clinical presentations.
Discussion
This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the clinical outcomes and challenges of various biomaterials that were originally developed for periodontal regeneration, sinus augmentation, and general wound healing for effecting the clinical closure of oroantral fistula and oroantral communication, particularly in case reports and series documenting infection-prone environments, dual-tissue barrier functions, and oral mechanical stresses. Overall, we observed a diverse range of mucosal and bone biomaterials, with the more common being PRF, advanced PRF, and collagen-based materials. The overall success rates reported in these case reports and case series were high, thus indicating the probable clinical effectiveness of the interventions described. Patient-reported outcomes, where available, consistently demonstrated improvements in pain relief, functional recovery, and aesthetic satisfaction. Autologous materials were frequently used, suggesting a trend toward leveraging patient-derived resources for enhanced biocompatibility and healing. A noteworthy trend was the frequent application of autologous materials, implying a shift toward utilizing patient-derived resources to enhance biocompatibility and facilitate healing.
The examined studies showed high success rates, with a substantial proportion of complete closure of the OAF, underscoring the promise of these biomaterials in the management of OAFs. PRF and advanced PRF, recognized for their growth factor composition and capacity to stimulate tissue regeneration, were frequently used and yielded favorable results [ 4 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 28 ]. Collagen-based materials, owing to their biocompatibility and capacity to facilitate tissue ingrowth, also demonstrated efficacy [ 27 , 29 ]. Bone grafts [ 13 , 17 ], especially in the context of extensive defects or recurrent OAFs, provide structural support and promote bone regeneration. Autogenous iliac grafts provide osteoinductive potential but carry donor site morbidity and rare late cysts due to respiratory epithelium entrapment during healing [ 30 – 32 ]. Furthermore, the application of diverse membranes, encompassing titanium-reinforced and non-resorbable d-PTFE membranes, conferred barrier functions and improved tissue healing [ 12 ]. The use of CAD-CAM allogenic bone blocks and amniotic membranes exemplifies the dynamic progression of biomaterials in the context of OAF closure [ 11 , 25 ]. Soft tissue grafts [ 15 , 16 , 21 ], including buccal fat pads and advancement flaps, demonstrated adaptability in managing intricate OAF scenarios, whether used independently or in combination with other biomaterials. The efficacy of buccal fat pad grafts as salvage therapy for recurrent or large defects previously resistant to conventional methods has been reported [ 34 , 35 ]. The observed variability in healing durations, spanning from mere days to several months, underscores the effects of biomaterial selection, OAF attributes, and patient-specific considerations on the ultimate healing results. Although complications were relatively uncommon, instances of infection and delayed healing were documented, thereby highlighting the critical importance of precise surgical execution and diligent postoperative management. Recurrence, albeit infrequently reported, accentuates the need for sustained follow-up and the proactive management of potential risk factors [ 36 ].
The quality assessment of these studies, using the JBI critical appraisal tool, revealed most studies had clear descriptions of patient attributes and clinical characteristics and interventions, while a few lacked detailed reporting of final desired outcomes and periodic follow-up. This limitation is generally inherent in case reports and case series studies, which often lack rigorous control groups and standardized outcome measures [ 37 , 38 ]. Several factors were identified as influencing the success rates of OAF closure, including defect size and location, patient medical history, the type of biomaterial used, the surgical technique employed, and postoperative care [ 2 , 14 ]. Larger-sized OAFs and those originating from complex etiologies may also require more robust biomaterials in association with advanced surgical techniques to achieve effective closures. Some of the patient-related factors, such as smoking and underlying systemic diseases, were associated with adverse healing outcomes and prolonged healing duration [ 1 , 2 , 34 ]. The findings of this systematic review thus have key clinical implications that may direct future research for OAF closures. The wide range of commercially available biomaterials observed in these studies offers clinicians a variety of surgical treatment options for effective OAF closure, while also allowing for individualized evidence-based treatment based on patient needs. The high clinical success rates of these biomaterials, as reported in these studies, support their efficacy in achieving intended OAF closure and thereby improving patient outcomes. However, one has to be aware of the potential limitations of a case report and case series, including reporting bias, lack of comparability (no control groups), and distinctive separate causality, which should be acknowledged.
Limitations
The findings of this systematic review require cautious interpretation owing to several methodological limitations of the involved studies. These findings cannot be generalized, which stems from their basis, which was a singular or narrowly focused case study. Additionally, the observational nature of these studies prevents the determination of causal relationships, as patient attributes and concurrent treatments introduce significant confounding variables that vary among populations and across geographical areas. Reporting bias is inherent to case reports and series, with most studies favoring positive clinical outcomes. Furthermore, the synthesis of data is hampered by heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting quality, as demonstrated by JBI appraisals that expose ambiguous demographic information or statistical approaches. Ultimately, the possibility of over-interpretation presents a challenge, whereby atypical cases could skew perceptions of biomaterial efficacy within complex scenarios, such as those involving infection or mechanical strain.
Future Directions
Although the results of this systematic review have limitations, they provide insight into future research directions. Future research needs to focus on conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to determine and compare the efficacy of different biomaterials and their relative surgical techniques for OAF closure. Standardized outcome measures and long-term follow-up protocols also need to be implemented, which will provide a more robust and reliable clinical evidence. Studies should also explore the potential role of certain novel biomaterials and tissue engineering approaches that were not mentioned in these studies, for broadening the scope of OAF management.
Conclusions
This systematic review in general emphasizes the use of a diverse range of mucosal and bone biomaterials for OAF closure, with PRF and advanced PRF being among the most frequently reported biomaterial types, either individually or in combination with other compatible biomaterial. Overall, most of the studies included in this systematic review reported favorable clinical outcomes. However, the variability in individual reporting indicates the need for standardized documentation and higher-quality studies to improve comparability, reliability, and validity and to guide evidence-based clinical decision-making.
Acknowledgments
Grammarly was used during manuscript preparation solely for language editing and grammatical refinement. All content is the original work of the authors.
Financial support: None declared
Conflict of interest: None declared
Publisher’s note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher
Declaration of Figures’ Authenticity: All figures submitted have been created by the authors who confirm that the images are original with no duplication and have not been previously published in whole or in part.
References
1 Verma RR Verma R Oro-antral fistulas and their management: Our experience Ind J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022 74 Suppl 2 1576 83 10.1007/s12070-021-02739-x PMC9702377 36452794
2 Parvini P Obreja K Begic A Decision-making in closure of oroantral communication and fistula Int J Implant Dent 2019 5 1 13 30931487 10.1186/s40729-019-0165-7 PMC6441669
3 Kwon MS Lee BS Choi BJ Closure of oroantral fistula: A review of local flap techniques J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020 46 1 58 65 32158682 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.1.58 PMC7049762
4 Adamska P Kaczoruk-Wieremczuk M Pylińska-Dąbrowska D Treatment of oroantral communication and fistulas with the use of blood-derived platelet-rich preparations rich in growth factors: A systematic review Int J Mol Sci 2024 25 21 11507 39519060 10.3390/ijms252111507 PMC11546229
5 Dipalma G Inchingolo AM Trilli I Management of oro-antral communication: A systemic review of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies Diagnostics (Basel) 2025 15 2 194 39857078 10.3390/diagnostics15020194 PMC11765130
6 Chen S Wu Z Huang Z Implantable dental barrier membranes as regenerative medicine in dentistry: A comprehensive review Tissue Eng Regen Med 2025 22 4 527 49 39992621 10.1007/s13770-025-00704-1 PMC12122982
7 Wang RC Wang Z Precision medicine: Disease subtyping and tailored treatment Cancers (Basel) 2023 15 15 3837 37568653 10.3390/cancers15153837 PMC10417651
8 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 33782057 10.1136/bmj.n71 PMC8005924
9 Munn Z Barker TH Moola S Methodological quality of case series studies: An introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool JBI Evid Synth 2020 18 10 2127 33 33038125 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099
10 Adamska P Pylińska-Dąbrowska D Stasiak M Treatment of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis with the use of growth factors in advanced platelet-rich fibrin for immediate closure of oro-antral communication: A case report Int J Mol Sci 2024 25 8 4339 38673924 10.3390/ijms25084339 PMC11049874
11 Helal MH Ali AN Ghoraba SF Aboushelib MN Prefabricated CAD-CAM scaffolds for management of oro-antral communication: A case report and histological analysis Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2024 26 2 258 65 38225873 10.1111/cid.13300
12 Yotsova RV Papanchev GY Ali M Gerova-Vatsova T Open barrier membrane technique for the treatment of oroantral communications: Two case reports Cureus 2024 16 7 e63854 39100069 10.7759/cureus.63854 PMC11297801
13 Park WB Bae MS Park W A novel approach for the treatment of recurrent oroantral fistula occurring at an infected sinus augmentation site Medicina (Kaunas) 2024 60 2 343 38399630 10.3390/medicina60020343 PMC10890197
14 Salas E Ladino LG Surgical approach to management of oroantral communications. Case report J Surg Case Rep 2024 2024 11 rjae700 39554382 10.1093/jscr/rjae700 PMC11570113
15 Jung JW Hong SO Lee EJ The double-barrier technique using platelet-rich fibrin for closure of oroantral fistulas J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023 49 3 163 68 37394937 10.5125/jkaoms.2023.49.3.163 PMC10318314
16 Pal S Rao K Sanjenbam N A double barrier technique in surgical closure of oroantral communication Cureus 2022 14 11 e31671 36545175 10.7759/cureus.31671 PMC9762534
17 Baek JH Kim BO Lee WP Implant placement after closure of oroantral communication by sinus bone graft using a collagen barrier membrane in the shape of a pouch: A case report and review of the literature Medicina (Lithuania) 2021 57 6 626 10.3390/medicina57060626 PMC8235364 34208644
18 Cheng GL Tatakis DN Collagen strip technique. A novel approach for ridge preservation and concomitant oroantral communication management after implant explantation Clin Adv Periodontics 2020 10 3 135 39 32065734 10.1002/cap.10092
19 Al-Juboori MJ Al-Attas MA Magno Filho LC Treatment of chronic oroantral fistula with platelet-rich fibrin clot and collagen membrane: A case report Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018 10 245 49 10.2147/CCIDE.S179751 PMC6233470 30519116
20 Chen YT Chang YC Use of platelet-rich fibrin and surgical approach for combined treatment of osteoradionecrosis: A case report J Int Med Res 2019 47 8 3998 4003 31354001 10.1177/0300060519862468 PMC6726788
21 Sharma SP Three-layered closure of persistent oroantral fistula using chin graft, buccal fat pad, and buccal advancement flap: A case report with review of literature Case Rep Dent 2019 2019 8450749 31485358 10.1155/2019/8450749 PMC6710802
22 George E Triple-layered closure of an oroantral fistula: A case report Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018 33 2 e33 e36 28518182 10.11607/jomi.5725
23 Assad M Bitar W Alhajj MN Closure of oroantral communication using platelet-rich fibrin: A report of two cases Ann Maxillofac Surg 2017 7 1 117 19 28713748 10.4103/ams.ams_77_17 PMC5502497
24 de Souza Lopes PH de Sampaio DO de Souza Menezes BL Combined palatal flap and titanium mesh for oroantral fistula closure Ann Maxillofac Surg 2015 5 1 89 92 26389042 10.4103/2231-0746.161090 PMC4555957
25 Lakshmi S Bharani S Ambardar K Repair of an oroantral communication by a human amniotic membrane: A novel technique J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015 41 4 194 97 26339578 10.5125/jkaoms.2015.41.4.194 PMC4558188
26 Diachkova E Morozova E Blagushina N Tarasenko S The modified Caldwell-Luc approach with the use of collagen material for treatment of a chronic perforated maxillary sinusitis Case Rep Dent 2020 2020 8874227 33194234 10.1155/2020/8874227 PMC7641717
27 Kumar AS Prasad C Rajiah D Closure of oroantral communication with gelfoam and collagen membrane after periapical cyst enucleation-A case report J Clin Diag Res 2022 16 10 ZD01 ZD04
28 Al-Noori NM Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) for treatment of oroantral fistula: A case report J Res Med Dent Sci 2019 7 5 17 20
29 Pandikanda R Singh R Patil V Flapless closure of oro-antral communication with PRF membrane and composite of PRF and collagen – A technical note J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 120 5 471 73 30599215 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.12.012
30 Lee BK One-stage operation of large oroantral fistula closure, sinus lifting, and autogenous bone grafting for dental implant installation Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 105 6 707 13 18299230 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.09.020
31 Lockhart R Ceccaldi J Bertrand JC Postoperative maxillary cyst following sinus bone graft: Report of a case Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 15 4 583 86 10960993
32 Scattarella A Ballini A Grassi FR Treatment of oroantral fistula with autologous bone graft and application of a non-reabsorbable membrane Int J Med Sci 2010 7 5 267 71 20714437 10.7150/ijms.7.267 PMC2920572
33 Castellano ERF Galletti C Fraile JF Formwork technique with mesh in elevations of sinus floors with large perforations of the Schneider membrane: A case pilot Reports 2024 7 4 113 40757706 10.3390/reports7040113 PMC12199951
34 Bereczki-Temistocle DL Gurzu S Ioan I Successful closure of an oro-antral communication, after three previously failed attempts, using bichat fat pad flap: A case report World J Plast Surg 2023 12 1 90 94 10.52547/wjps.12.1.90 PMC10200079 37220572
35 Yang S Jee YJ Ryu DM Reconstruction of large oroantral defects using a pedicled buccal fat pad Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2018 40 1 7 29637060 10.1186/s40902-018-0144-6 PMC5884745
36 Ben-Dor A Gabay E Horwitz J Severe complications following maxillary sinus augmentation using poly L-lactide-co-ɛ-caprolactone-coated bovine bone: A retrospective study Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021 36 5 1024 31 34698730 10.11607/jomi.8792
37 Rossi-Fedele G Kahler B Venkateshbabu N Limited evidence suggests benefits of single visit revascularization endodontic procedures – A systematic review Braz Dent J 2019 30 6 527 35 31800745 10.1590/0103-6440201902670
38 Nissen T Wynn R The clinical case report: A review of its merits and limitations BMC Res Notes 2014 7 264 24758689 10.1186/1756-0500-7-264 PMC4001358