{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02945859872611465, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01194267515923567, 'mean_word_length': 5.161764705882353, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical and histological outcomes of maxillary sinus floor augmentation with synthetic bone substitutes for dental implant treatment: A meta-analysis.

The objective of the present review was to gather all available human randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical and histological results of synthetic bone substitutes used in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Authors electronically searched in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases to analyse the success of endosseous dental implant, implant failure, peri-implant marginal bone loss, newly formed bone and residual bone graft material.  After the search, ten randomized clinical trials were included. Four studies ranging from low to unclear risk of bias were used for meta-analysis, being able to compare only biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and deproteinized bovine bone (DBB). A greater amount of residual graft material (mean difference -MD- 4.80 mm; 95% CI, 9.35 to 0.26; P= 0.040) was found in DBB group. No other statistically significant differences were found between BCP and DBB for the rest of outcomes. Thus, our results suggested that BCP can be considered a suitable alternative to DBB in maxillary sinus floor augmentation due to its clinical and histological results.