↓ Skip to main content

Maxillary sinus augmentation using chairside bone marrow aspirate concentrates for implant site development: a systematic review of histomorphometric studies

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Implant Dentistry, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Maxillary sinus augmentation using chairside bone marrow aspirate concentrates for implant site development: a systematic review of histomorphometric studies
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40729-018-0137-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam Ting, Philip Afshar, Arik Adhami, Stanton M. Braid, Jon B. Suzuki

Abstract

Maxillary sinus pneumatization following dental tooth extractions and maxillary alveolar bone resorption frequently leaves inadequate bone levels for implant placement. The objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate the effects of bone marrow aspirate concentrates (BMACs) used in maxillary sinus augmentation for implant site development.A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies which histomorphometrically evaluated the efficacy of BMACs and BMAC-enriched biomaterials in sinus floor elevation. Six studies were selected, and the risk of bias was evaluated.Reported ranges of vital mineralized tissue for the BMAC groups for the selected studies were 34.63-55.15% compared to 27.30% for control groups. For vital mineralized bone, these studies reported variable statistical significance. At 3-4 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups with controls using no BMAC was 7.4-12.6% and for the control groups was 9.45-14.3%. At 6 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups was 13.5-14.12% and for control groups was 10.41-13.9%. For new bone formation, these studies reported no significant difference between test and control and between 3 and 6 months histologic evaluation.Within the limits of this systematic review, the chairside method to harvest BMAC produced similar implant survival and new bone formation compared to the laboratory FICOLL group, without the additional cost and time of laboratory cell isolation techniques. The iliac crest or tibia origins, single or double centrifugation, for BMAC do not appear to be a factor for implant survival or bone formation. Although some favorable outcomes were reported, the increase in new bone formation using chairside-harvested BMAC compared to control is not predictably more significant across studies.Clinically, new bone formation in the maxillary sinus is not always contingent on the presence of BMAC. The novelty of this method requires more future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 11 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 10 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,444,798
of 13,465,538 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#15
of 36 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,809
of 264,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,465,538 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one scored the same or higher as 21 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them