Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May 16;11(1):36.
doi: 10.1186/s40729-025-00615-9.

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

Carlos Manuel Cobo-Vázquez  1 , Sonia García-Rodríguez  1 , María Eugenia Colmenares-Otero  1 , Luis Miguel Sáez-Alcaide  2 , Jorge Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann  1 , Cristina Madrigal Martínez-Pereda  1 , Cristina Meniz-Garcia  1
Affiliations
Review

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

Carlos Manuel Cobo-Vázquez et al. Int J Implant Dent. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Crestal sinus lift; Maxillary sinus lift; Osseodensification; Osteotome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart diagram showing selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest-plot for implant survival
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest-plot for residual bone height
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel-plot for residual bone height
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest-plot for bone gain
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Funnel-plot for bone gain
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Borg-Bartolo R, Roccuzzo A, Molinero-Mourelle P, Schimmel M, Gambetta-Tessini K, Chaurasia A, Koca-Ünsal RB, Tennert C, Giacaman R, Campus G. Global prevalence of edentulism and dental caries in middle-aged and elderly persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2022;127: 104335. - PubMed
    1. Van de Rijt LJM, Stoop CC, Weijenberg RAF, de Vries R, Feast AR, Sampson EL, Lobbezoo F. The influence of oral health factors on the quality of life in older people: a systematic review. Gerontologist. 2020;60(5):378–94. - PubMed
    1. Nordenram G, Davidson T, Gynther G, Helgesson G, Hultin M, Jemt T, Lekholm U, Nilner K, Norlund A, Rohlin M, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Tranæus S. Qualitative studies of patients’ perceptions of loss of teeth, the edentulous state and prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review with meta-synthesis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3–4):937–51. - PubMed
    1. Guillaume B. Dental implants: a review. Morphologie. 2016;100(331):189–98. - PubMed
    1. Pjetursson BE, Heimisdottir K. Dental implants - are they better than natural teeth? Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(1):81–7. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources