Clinical and radiographic evaluation for two crestal sinus lift techniques: osteotome versus osseodensification. a systematic review and meta-analysis

doi:10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9

★ Alto impactoQ1 · DentistryImpact Factor · 4.405

AutoresCarlos Cobo-Vázquez, Sonia García-Rodríguez, María Eugenia Colmenares-Otero, Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide, Jorge Cortés‐Bretón Brinkmann, Cristina Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, Cristina Méniz-García

Por qué importa

Esta revisión sistemática y metaanálisis compara la elevación de seno maxilar por vía crestal utilizando la técnica del osteótomo frente a la osteodensificación. El objetivo era evaluar diferencias en ganancia ósea, pérdida ósea marginal, tasa de supervivencia de implantes y complicaciones, aspectos cruciales para el éxito implantológico en el maxilar superior. Los resultados sugieren que la osteodensificación, si bien ofrece una ganancia ósea similar a la técnica del osteótomo, presenta una tasa de complicaciones significativamente menor. Esta información es relevante para los clínicos que buscan optimizar resultados y minimizar riesgos en procedimientos de regeneración ósea para la colocación de implantes dentales.

Abstract original

PURPOSE: Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a safe and effective surgical technique for achieving vertical bone height, performed through either a lateral or crestal approach. The latter includes both the osteotome technique and osseodensification. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of the classic crestal sinus lift technique and the osseodensification sinus lift approach in terms of the bone gain, marginal bone loss, survival rate, follow-up time and complications. METHODS: This review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across three databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed); (2) SCOPUS; and (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for evaluating risk of bias. A meta-analysis for random effects was carried out for implant survival, residual bone height and bone gain. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, ten studies performed the osteotome (OST) approach and three performed the osseodensification (OD) approach, with a total of 519 sites treated. The residual bone height was 5.94 and 5.00 mm for OD and OST, respectively. For bone gain, similar results were found for both groups, being 3.37 mm for OD and 3.18 mm for OST. For both groups, the most used diameter and length of the implant was 4 and 10 mm, respectively, and the implant survival rates ranged from 94.1% to 100%. OST technique reflected a complication rate of 14.32%, compared to the OD technique, which showed a complication rate of 2.78%. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the maxillary sinus lift by osseodesinfication approach is a safe, predictable and successful technique compared to the osteotome approach, with similar outcomes regarding bone gain which is an important parameter for implant placement.

Leer texto completo ↗DOI · 10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9

Autor Doctor&Cols

Carlos M. Cobo Vázquez
Cirugía Oral e Implantología

Cómo citar

Cobo-Vázquez C, García-Rodríguez S, Colmenares-Otero ME, Sáez-Alcaide LM, Brinkmann JC, Martínez-Pereda CM, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation for two crestal sinus lift techniques: osteotome versus osseodensification. a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2025. doi:10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9