Table 3 Summary of the characteristics and main results of clinical studies
From: The bone lid technique in lateral sinus lift: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Refs. | Study design | Tot. no. of patient | No. of test cases (bone lid) | Test cases - Biomaterial(s) | No. of control cases | Control cases - Biomaterial(s) | Mean follow-up duration (months) | Bone cutting instruments | Bone lid fixation | No. of implants (timing of insertion) | Assessment method(s) | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Johansson et al. [42] | RCT | 24 | 10 | None | 19 | Collagen membrane (CM) without bone graft [9] Autogenous bone graft (ABG) without membrane [10] | 7 | Piezosurgery | None Resorbable sutures (when further stability was searched) | Simultaneous implant placement (n = 101, comprising test and controls group) | Radiographic assessment: CBCT Clinical assessment Micro-CT of retrieved experimental implants Histological analysis (one retrieved experimental implant) | Clinical assessments: all lateral sinus walls ossified in ABG group, one and 2 lateral sinus walls not completely ossified in BW and CM groups, respectively Radiographic assessment: mean residual bone height in groups bone lid, CM, and ABG was 4.3 mm, 3.5 mm, and 4.3 mm, respectively, with no statistical difference found between these groups. No statistically significant correlations between sinus width (apicobuccal, P = 0.769; apicolingual, P = 0.532) and intra-sinus bone levels. Statistical difference between the apicobuccal distance and the apicolingual distance of the same implant. Mean apicobuccal distance/apicolingual distance was 0.6 mm/1.2 mm (bone lid group), 0.5 mm/0.8 mm (CM group), and 0.6 mm/0.8 mm (ABG group) (P = 0.003) Micro-CT: no statistical differences in %BIC between the groups (93.5% bone lid, 92.0% CM, and 93.5% ABG) Complications: one implant failure in the CM group |
Sohn et al. [32] | Case–control study | 10 | 5 | None | 5 | Non-resorbable membrane | 14.8 | Piezosurgery | Fibrin adhesive None (if bone thickness > 1 mm) | Simultaneous implant placement (n = 21, comprising test and control group) | - Clinical assessments;  Radiographic assessments (CT and plain radiograms)  Histological analysis | Clinical assessments: no notable differences between test and control group in bone regeneration, but bone lid was more cost-effective and time-efficient as compared to non-resorbable membrane to seal the lateral wall of the sinus Radiographic assessments: All implants protruded a minimum of 4 mm into the sinus cavity; new bone formation behind original sinus floor Histological analysis: new bone formation in all cases Implant-related outcomes: all implants stable at the follow-up; implant survival rate 100% at follow-up Complications: 1 perforation (sealed with resorbable membrane and fibrin adhesive) |