One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants vs Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long: Prosthesis failure
- Population
- Patients with 3 to 6 mm of residual bone height at the sinus floor
- Intervention
- One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants
- Comparison
- Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long
- Outcome
- Prosthesis failure
One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm… showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and…; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm implants vs Lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and implants at least 10 mm long Prosthesis failure · Patients with 3 to 6 mm of residual bone height at the sinus floor · 5 years after loading One-stage crestal-approach sinus lift with autogenous bone and 8 mm… showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with lateral-window sinus lift with 50% autogenous bone/50% Bio-Oss and…; GRADE not reported. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus (2014) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 0.47 [0.04, 5.69] | 1 study · 40 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-01 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.