Clinical and radiographic evaluation for two crestal sinus lift techniques: osteotome versus osseodensification. a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Carlos Manuel Cobo-Vázquez, Sonia García-Rodríguez, María Eugenia Colmenares-Otero, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Jorge Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann, Cristina Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, Cristina Meniz-Garcia
{"title":"Clinical and radiographic evaluation for two crestal sinus lift techniques: osteotome versus osseodensification. a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Carlos Manuel Cobo-Vázquez, Sonia García-Rodríguez, María Eugenia Colmenares-Otero, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Jorge Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann, Cristina Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, Cristina Meniz-Garcia","doi":"10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a safe and effective surgical technique for achieving vertical bone height, performed through either a lateral or crestal approach. The latter includes both the osteotome technique and osseodensification. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of the classic crestal sinus lift technique and the osseodensification sinus lift approach in terms of the bone gain, marginal bone loss, survival rate, follow-up time and complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across three databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed); (2) SCOPUS; and (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for evaluating risk of bias. A meta-analysis for random effects was carried out for implant survival, residual bone height and bone gain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were included, ten studies performed the osteotome (OST) approach and three performed the osseodensification (OD) approach, with a total of 519 sites treated. The residual bone height was 5.94 and 5.00 mm for OD and OST, respectively. For bone gain, similar results were found for both groups, being 3.37 mm for OD and 3.18 mm for OST. For both groups, the most used diameter and length of the implant was 4 and 10 mm, respectively, and the implant survival rates ranged from 94.1% to 100%. OST technique reflected a complication rate of 14.32%, compared to the OD technique, which showed a complication rate of 2.78%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It can be concluded that the maxillary sinus lift by osseodesinfication approach is a safe, predictable and successful technique compared to the osteotome approach, with similar outcomes regarding bone gain which is an important parameter for implant placement.</p>","PeriodicalId":14076,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","volume":"11 1","pages":"36"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084192/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Implant Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a safe and effective surgical technique for achieving vertical bone height, performed through either a lateral or crestal approach. The latter includes both the osteotome technique and osseodensification. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of the classic crestal sinus lift technique and the osseodensification sinus lift approach in terms of the bone gain, marginal bone loss, survival rate, follow-up time and complications.

Methods: This review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across three databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed); (2) SCOPUS; and (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for evaluating risk of bias. A meta-analysis for random effects was carried out for implant survival, residual bone height and bone gain.

Results: Thirteen studies were included, ten studies performed the osteotome (OST) approach and three performed the osseodensification (OD) approach, with a total of 519 sites treated. The residual bone height was 5.94 and 5.00 mm for OD and OST, respectively. For bone gain, similar results were found for both groups, being 3.37 mm for OD and 3.18 mm for OST. For both groups, the most used diameter and length of the implant was 4 and 10 mm, respectively, and the implant survival rates ranged from 94.1% to 100%. OST technique reflected a complication rate of 14.32%, compared to the OD technique, which showed a complication rate of 2.78%.

Conclusions: It can be concluded that the maxillary sinus lift by osseodesinfication approach is a safe, predictable and successful technique compared to the osteotome approach, with similar outcomes regarding bone gain which is an important parameter for implant placement.

两种嵴窦提升技术的临床和影像学评价:骨切开术与骨化术。系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:上颌窦底提升术是一种安全有效的手术技术,可通过外侧或嵴入路达到垂直骨高度。后者包括成骨技术和骨密度。本系统综述的目的是比较经典的嵴窦提升技术和骨密度窦提升入路在骨质增加、边缘骨质流失、存活率、随访时间和并发症方面的结果。方法:本综述按照PRISMA指南进行。通过三个数据库进行电子检索:(1)美国国家医学图书馆(MEDLINE/PubMed);(2)斯高帕斯;(3) Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(Central)。纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表和Cochrane协作工具评估偏倚风险。对种植体存活、剩余骨高度和骨增重的随机效应进行meta分析。结果:纳入13项研究,10项研究采用骨切开术(OST)入路,3项采用骨密度化(OD)入路,共治疗519个部位。OD和OST的残骨高度分别为5.94和5.00 mm。对于骨增重,两组的结果相似,OD为3.37 mm, OST为3.18 mm。两组最常用种植体直径为4 mm,种植体长度为10 mm,种植体成活率为94.1% ~ 100%。OST技术的并发症发生率为14.32%,OD技术的并发症发生率为2.78%。结论:与成骨入路相比,骨去除入路上颌窦提升是一种安全、可预测和成功的技术,在骨增重方面效果相似,骨增重是种植体放置的重要参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
International Journal of Implant Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
53
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Implant Dentistry is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the SpringerOpen brand. The journal is dedicated to promoting the exchange and discussion of all research areas relevant to implant dentistry in the form of systematic literature or invited reviews, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, clinical case reports, basic laboratory and animal research, and articles on material research and engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信