Starch-Jensen Thomas, Deluiz Daniel, Duch Kirsten, Tinoco Eduardo Muniz Barretto
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, AalborgDenmark.
Department of Periodontology, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de JaneiroBrazil.
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019 Dec 30;10(4):e1. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10401. eCollection 2019 Oct-Dec.
Test the hypothesis of no difference in implant treatment outcomes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with or without barrier membrane coverage of the lateral window.
A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until the 5th of July, 2019 were included. Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials with an observation period of minimum six months were included. Primary outcomes included survival of suprastructures and implants. Secondary outcomes included implant stability quotient, peri-implant marginal bone loss, bone regeneration, patient-reported outcome measures, biologic and mechanical complications.
The electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 1068 entries. Six randomised controlled trials characterised by low to high risk of bias and one controlled trial with high risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. High implant survival rate was reported with both treatment modalities. Meta-analyses disclosed a mean difference of newly formed bone of 6.4% (confidence interval = 0 to 12.9) and non-mineralised tissue of -1.1% (confidence interval = -2.7 to 0.5), indicating more newly formed bone and diminished non-mineralised with barrier membrane coverage.
There seem to be no statistically significant differences in implant treatment outcomes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with or without barrier membrane coverage of the lateral window. However, barrier membrane coverage increases percentage of newly formed bone and diminishes proliferation of non-mineralised tissue. Thus, barrier membrane coverage seems to be beneficial and also preventing displacement of the grafting material.
验证在上颌窦底提升术中，使用或不使用屏障膜覆盖侧窗，种植治疗效果无差异这一假设。
对MEDLINE（PubMed）、Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行检索，并手工检索相关期刊。纳入截至2019年7月5日发表的英文人体研究。纳入随机对照试验和观察期至少为6个月的对照试验。主要结局包括上部结构和种植体的存留率。次要结局包括种植体稳定性商数、种植体周围边缘骨丢失、骨再生、患者报告结局指标、生物学和机械并发症。
电子检索和手工检索共得到1068条记录。六项偏倚风险从低到高的随机对照试验和一项偏倚风险高的对照试验符合纳入标准。两种治疗方式均报告了较高的种植体存留率。荟萃分析显示，新形成骨的平均差异为6.4%（置信区间=0至12.9），非矿化组织的平均差异为-1.1%（置信区间=-2.7至0.5），表明使用屏障膜覆盖时新形成的骨更多，非矿化组织减少。
在上颌窦底提升术中，使用或不使用屏障膜覆盖侧窗，种植治疗效果似乎无统计学显著差异。然而，屏障膜覆盖可增加新形成骨的百分比，并减少非矿化组织的增殖。因此，屏障膜覆盖似乎有益，还可防止移植材料移位。
