Are mucous retention cysts and pseudocysts in the maxillary sinus a risk factor for dental implants? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mucous retention cysts and pseudocysts of the maxillary sinus are benign lesions present in up to 13% of adult patients. Different surgical approaches for sinus lift and dental implant placement in the presence of these lesions have been proposed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: Does the aspiration or removal of mucous retention cysts/pseudocysts before or during sinus lifting and dental implant placing, affect the survival of the implants? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020185528). Included articles quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tool" and "The Newcastle-Ottawa scale". RESULTS: Previous literature in this field is scarce and with a low level of evidence. There are no randomized prospective studies. Only 19 studies were identified, being composed of 2 cohort studies and 17 case series/reports. These studies involved 182 patients with a previous history of mucous retention cyst or pseudocyst in 195 maxillary sinuses where 233 implants were placed. The mean age of the patients was 45.5 (range: 12-80 years); 122 (67%) were male patients and 60 (33%) were female patients. The mean follow-up of the patients was 17.6 (range: 4-90 months). Only two fail was reported. No differences were identified in relation to the surgical approach or in relation to the removal/aspiration of the sinus lesion (prior to or simultaneous to sinus grafting) or not. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence was grade 4 according to the CEBM and further studies are needed to confirm this observations, but with the available data, dental implants placement after sinus lift procedure in patients with mucous retention cysts and pseudocysts seems to be safe and present high survival regardless on the removal of the lesion or not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".