What do systematic reviews say?

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window vs Piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year after loading
  Rickert 2013 (N = 36): no complications at donor site.
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window vs Piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year after loading
  Rickert 2013 (split-mouth, N = 36): no prosthesis failures in either group.
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window vs Piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year after loading
  Rickert 2013 (N = 36): no augmentation procedure failures.
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window vs Piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year after loading
  Rickert 2013 (N = 36): no implant failures in either group.
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window vs Piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window

Rotary instruments to open the lateral sinus window showed no clear difference in complications at augmented site compared with piezosurgery to open the lateral sinus window; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year after loading
  OR 1.00 [0.27, 3.74]
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Biofunctional Prosthetic System (BPS): closed-mouth two stage-two step final impression with addition silicone elastomer vs Conventional complete denture technique (CCD): open-mouth two stage-two step conventional technique using elastomer

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  OHIP-EDENT median scores: BPS 34.5; CCD 35.8. No clear difference between groups
  1 study · 10 participants
  Very low

Biofunctional Prosthetic System (BPS): closed-mouth two stage-two step final impression with addition silicone elastomer vs Conventional complete denture technique (CCD): open-mouth two stage-two step conventional technique using elastomer

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  Median number of denture adjustments: BPS 3.5; CCD 4.5. BPS required fewer adjustments
  1 study · 10 participants
  Very low

Biofunctional Prosthetic System (BPS): closed-mouth two stage-two step final impression with addition silicone elastomer vs Conventional complete denture technique (CCD): open-mouth two stage-two step conventional technique using elastomer

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  VAS median scores: BPS 86.5; CCD 88. No clear difference between groups
  1 study · 10 participants
  Very low

Biofunctional Prosthetic System (BPS): closed-mouth two stage-two step final impression with addition silicone elastomer vs Conventional complete denture technique (CCD): open-mouth two stage-two step conventional technique using elastomer

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  When participants were asked which denture they would prefer to use long term, nine out of 10 opted for the one made with the BPS complete denture technique.
  1 study · 10 participants
  GRADE not reported