Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis paper addressed two focused questions: Focused question 1 (Q1) “what is the clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation (TSFA), as compared to lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) in sites with residual bone height (RBH) ≤6 mm, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?”; Focused question 2 (Q2) “what is the estimated effectiveness of TSFA for outcomes in Q1, in RCTs, CCTs or cohort studies?”Materials and MethodsAn electronic search (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and hand search were conducted from January 1986 until December 2022. All eligible clinical studies expressly reporting TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm were included. The data were extracted, and the risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated. Meta‐analysis was performed whenever possible.ResultsSeven RCTs were included for Q1 and 25 studies (9 RCTs, 2 CCTs, 14 single arm cohort studies) for Q2. Q1: Meta‐analysis did not show significant difference in the implant survival, sinus membrane perforation and marginal bone loss between TSFA and LSFA groups. Q2: Meta‐analysis showed TSFA had a high implant survival rate (96.5%, 95% CI: 93.2%–98.9%) at least 1 year after surgery, and limited sinus membrane perforation (5.4%, 95% CI: 2.7%–8.8%). The results also presented higher patient satisfaction for TSFA.ConclusionWith the limitations of the present study (high risk of bias in individual studies), it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in implant survival, Schneiderian membrane perforation and MBL between two approaches in sites with RBH ≤6 mm.