Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Overview

Journal J Oral Maxillofac Res

Date 2020 Dec 2

PMID 33262881

Citations 5

Authors

Thomas Starch-Jensen

Daniel Deluiz

Niels Henrik Bruun

Eduardo Muniz Barretto Tinoco

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in histomorphometric outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft alone compared with alternate grafting materials applying the lateral window technique.

Material And Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 25 of March, 2020 were included. Histomorphometric outcomes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 1902 entries. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics showed comparable or improved histomorphometric outcomes with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference of -7.1% (CI = -11.0 to -3.2) indicating a significant higher amount of bone after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with alternate grafting materials. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a non-significantly differences of -3.7% (CI = -10.9 to 3.4), -11.5% (CI = -25.9 to 2.8), 2.2% (CI = -16.9 to 21.3), and -4.6% (CI = -14.4 to 5.2), when autogenous bone graft was compared with allogeneic bone graft, xenograft, composite grafting materials involving xenograft or synthetic biomaterial mixed with autogenous bone graft, respectively.

Conclusions: Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft seems to facilitate improved histomorphometric outcomes compared with alternate grafting materials. However, the included studies were characterised by an unclear risk of bias and various methodological confounding factors. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of present study should be interpreted with caution.

Citing Articles

A novel Chilean salmon fish backbone-based nanoHydroxyApatite functional biomaterial for potential use in bone tissue engineering.

Munoz F, Haidar Z, Puigdollers A, Guerra I, Padilla M, Ortega N Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1330482.

PMID: 38774396 PMC: 11106468. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1330482.

Assessment of the osteogenic effect after maxillary sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implantation with or without bone grafts by analyzing trabecular bone parameters: a retrospective study.

Wang M, Li B, Feng H, Ye Q, Sun Y, Duan X J Appl Oral Sci. 2024; 32:e20230406.

PMID: 38359269 PMC: 10984575. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0406.

Two-Step Progressive Transcrestal Sinus Augmentation Using a 4.5 mm Unloaded Implant as a "Temporary Implant" in Highly Atrophic Ridge: Case Report.

Anitua E Eur J Dent. 2023; 17(2):560-566.

PMID: 36696916 PMC: 10329543. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755557.

Patient's perception of recovery after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafts: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Starch-Jensen T, Ahmad M, Bruun N, Becktor J Int J Implant Dent. 2021; 7(1):99.

PMID: 34595577 PMC: 8633212. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00379-y.

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Compared with a Composite Grafting Material or Bone Substitute Alone: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing Volumetric Stability of the Grafting Material.

Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Vitenson J, Bruun N, Tinoco E J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021; 12(1):e1.

PMID: 33959236 PMC: 8085675. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2021.12101.

References

Nissen K, Starch-Jensen T . Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Graft From the Ascending Mandibular Ramus. Implant Dent. 2018; 28(1):46-53. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000845. View

Kim Y, Kim S, Kim K, Jhin M, Kim W, Lee Y . Rabbit maxillary sinus augmentation model with simultaneous implant placement: differential responses to the graft materials. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013; 42(6):204-11. PMC: 3543935. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.204. View

Vasconcelos K, Corpas L, Silveira B, Laperre K, Padovan L, Jacobs R . MicroCT assessment of bone microarchitecture in implant sites reconstructed with autogenous and xenogenous grafts: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(3):308-313. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12799. View

Lee J, Susin C, Rodriguez N, DE Stefano J, Prasad H, Buxton A . Sinus augmentation using rhBMP-2/ACS in a mini-pig model: relative efficacy of autogenous fresh particulate iliac bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(5):497-504. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02419.x. View

Clavero J, Lundgren S . Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5(3):154-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00197.x. View

Tadjoedin E, de Lange G, Holzmann P, Kulper L, Burger E . Histological observations on biopsies harvested following sinus floor elevation using a bioactive glass material of narrow size range. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11(4):334-44. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011004334.x. View

Zijderveld S, Zerbo I, van den Bergh J, Schulten E, Ten Bruggenkate C . Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a beta-tricalcium phosphate (Cerasorb) alone compared to autogenous bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20(3):432-40. View

Suba Z, Takacs D, Matusovits D, Barabas J, Fazekas A, Szabo G . Maxillary sinus floor grafting with beta-tricalcium phosphate in humans: density and microarchitecture of the newly formed bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(1):102-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01166.x. View

de Castilho T, Tortamano P, Marotti J, de Andrade Jr J, Chilvarquer I, Ximenez M . Clinical and Histomorphometric Evaluation of Fresh Frozen Bone Allograft in Sinus Lift Surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 18(1):40-50. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12234. View

10.

Jensen T, Schou S, Gundersen H, Forman J, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P . Bone-to-implant contact after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss and autogenous bone in different ratios in mini pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(6):635-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02438.x. View

11.

Hallman M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S . A clinical and histologic evaluation of implant integration in the posterior maxilla after sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone, bovine hydroxyapatite, or a 20:80 mixture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17(5):635-43. View

12.

Starch-Jensen T, Mordenfeld A, Becktor J, Jensen S . Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2018; 27(3):363-374. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000768. View

13.

Scarano A, Degidi M, Iezzi G, Pecora G, Piattelli M, Orsini G . Maxillary sinus augmentation with different biomaterials: a comparative histologic and histomorphometric study in man. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(2):197-207. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000220120.54308.f3. View

14.

Bosshardt D, Chappuis V, Buser D . Osseointegration of titanium, titanium alloy and zirconia dental implants: current knowledge and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2016; 73(1):22-40. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12179. View

15.

Sakkas A, Wilde F, Heufelder M, Winter K, Schramm A . Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology-is it still a "gold standard"? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures. Int J Implant Dent. 2017; 3(1):23. PMC: 5453915. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-017-0084-4. View

16.

Jensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P . Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(3):263-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02168.x. View

17.

Parithimarkalaignan S, Padmanabhan T . Osseointegration: an update. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 13(1):2-6. PMC: 3602536. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0252-z. View

18.

Ahmed M, Abu Shama A, Hamdy R, Ezz M . Bioresorbable versus titanium space-maintaining mesh in maxillary sinus floor elevation: a split-mouth study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 46(9):1178-1187. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.04.001. View

19.

Pereira R, Menezes J, Bonardi J, Griza G, Okamoto R, Hochuli-Vieira E . Comparative study of volumetric changes and trabecular microarchitecture in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation with bioactive glass and autogenous bone graft: a prospective and randomized assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 47(5):665-671. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.11.016. View

20.

Schaaf H, Streckbein P, Lendeckel S, Heidinger K, Gortz B, Bein G . Topical use of platelet-rich plasma to influence bone volume in maxillary augmentation: a prospective randomized trial. Vox Sang. 2007; 94(1):64-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2007.00997.x. View