Clinical oral implants research · 2011
Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический 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.
Jensen Thomas, Schou Søren, Stavropoulos Andreas, Terheyden Hendrik, Holmstrup Palle
Аннотация
AIMS: The objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no differences in the implant treatment outcome when Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone is used as graft for the maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) applying the lateral window technique.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed) search in combination with a hand search of relevant journals was conducted by including human studies published in English from January 1, 1990 to June 1, 2010. The search provided 879 titles and 35 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Considerable variation in the included studies prevented meta-analysis from being performed and no long-term study comparing MSFA with the two treatment modalities was identified. Also, the survival of suprastructures after the two augmentation procedures was not compared within the same study.
RESULTS: The 1-year implant survival was compared in one study demonstrating no statistically significant difference. The implant survival was 96% with Bio-Oss and 94% with a mixture of 80% Bio-Oss and 20% autogenous mandibular bone. Addition of a limited amount of autogenous bone to Bio-Oss seemed not to increase the amount of new bone formation and bone-to-implant contact compared with Bio-Oss.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the hypothesis of no differences between the use of Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft for MSFA could neither be confirmed nor rejected.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed) search in combination with a hand search of relevant journals was conducted by including human studies published in English from January 1, 1990 to June 1, 2010. The search provided 879 titles and 35 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Considerable variation in the included studies prevented meta-analysis from being performed and no long-term study comparing MSFA with the two treatment modalities was identified. Also, the survival of suprastructures after the two augmentation procedures was not compared within the same study.
RESULTS: The 1-year implant survival was compared in one study demonstrating no statistically significant difference. The implant survival was 96% with Bio-Oss and 94% with a mixture of 80% Bio-Oss and 20% autogenous mandibular bone. Addition of a limited amount of autogenous bone to Bio-Oss seemed not to increase the amount of new bone formation and bone-to-implant contact compared with Bio-Oss.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the hypothesis of no differences between the use of Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft for MSFA could neither be confirmed nor rejected.