Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Residual Bone Height and New Bone Formation after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Procedure Using Biomaterials: A
Shahnavaz Khijmatgar1,2, Massimo Del Fabbro1,3, Margherita Tumedei1,3
1Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Background:
Different factors may affect new bone formation following maxillary sinus floor augmentation for the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous maxilla. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of residual bone height (RBH) on new bone formation after lateral sinus augmentation utilizing different biomaterials, through a network meta-analysis (NMA).
Methods:
PUBMED, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched until 31 December 2022 to obtain relevant articles. A hand search was also conducted. Randomised controlled studies on maxillary sinus augmentation comparing different grafting materials in patients with atrophic posterior maxilla, in need of prosthetic rehabilitation, were included. The risk of bias was assessed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome was new bone formation (NBF), assessed histomorphometrically. The statistical analysis was performed by splitting the data according to RBH (<4 mm and ≥4 mm).
Results:
A total of 67 studies were eligible for conducting NMA. Overall, in the included studies, 1955 patients were treated and 2405 sinus augmentation procedures were performed. The biomaterials used were grouped into: autogenous bone (Auto), xenografts (XG), allografts (AG), alloplasts (AP), bioactive agents (Bio), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combinations of these. An inconsistency factor (IF) seen in the entire loop of the XG, AP, and Bio+AP was found to be statistically significant. The highest-ranked biomaterials for the <4 mm RBH outcome were XG+AG, XG+AP, and Auto. Similarly, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of biomaterials for ≥4 mm RBH was Auto, Bio+XG, and XG+Auto.
Conclusion:
There is no grafting biomaterial that is consistently performing better than others. The performance of the materials in terms of NBF may depend on the RBH. While choosing a biomaterial, practitioners should consider both patient-specific aspects and sinus clinical characteristics.
