Efficacy of Different Materials for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Lateral Approach. A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with lateral approach has undergone considerable changes since its inception, mainly due to the introduction of a variety of grafting materials and surgical protocols, with the aim of providing predictable and durable support to implants and improving treatment outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the performance of MSFA in terms of graft stability and implant survival, based on randomized clinical trials. METHODS: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO. An electronic search was performed on Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, integrated with hand-searching on the main pertinent Journals and search of gray literature. Randomized studies on MSFA with a lateral approach reporting on radiographic changes in graft height or volume after at least six months of healing, implant survival, and marginal bone level changes after at least 12 months of loading were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies. Studies included underwent data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROB 2.0 Cochrane tool. RESULTS: Out of 3922 studies retrieved, 49 studies (57 articles) were included for data extraction and qualitative analysis. These studies reported on 1265 patients and 1722 MSFA procedures. Thirteen studies were at low risk, 30 had some concerns, and six were at high risk of bias. No quantitative synthesis was possible due to the characteristics of the studies and their methodology. The overall implant survival rate ranged from 84.6% to 100% without evidence of any relevant difference related to the grafting material. CONCLUSION: The results of this review, based on descriptive statistics, may suggest that the success of the lateral MSFA procedure is independent of the graft type, at least in the short term. To verify this interpretation, formal statistical analyses on trustworthy and more detailed clinical data are needed. Also, long-term data on graft dimensional stability from evidence-based studies are needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".