Implant dentistry · 2018
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Starch-Jensen Thomas, Mordenfeld Arne, Becktor Jonas Peter, Jensen Simon Storgård
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses of no differences in implant treatment outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with synthetic bone substitutes (SBS) compared with other grafting materials applying the lateral window technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS.
CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS.
CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.