. 2022 Oct 24;93(12):1827–1847. doi: 10.1002/JPER.22-0069

TABLE 3.

Characteristics of included articles on the topic of maxillary sinus floor augmentation

Authors	1. Setting(s) 2. Country(ies)	RCT Design	Protocol for sinus floor elevation	Biologic	Material	Final Number of Participants	Final number of interventions	Healing Time (months)	Method(s) for assessment of primary outcomes	Main findings from primary outcomes
Barros Mourão et al. (2019)	1. University 2. Brazil	Split‐mouth	LA: Osteotomy performed with Piezoelectric. Resorbable membrane between the material and the Schneiderian membrane	BDGF	CaP	10	10	6	CBCT	BDGF does not improve bone repair when associated with calcium phosphate in MSFA procedures
Barros Mourão et al. (2019)	1. University 2. Brazil	Split‐mouth		None	CaP	10	10	6	CBCT
Bettega et al. (2009)	1. Private practice 2. France	Split‐mouth	LA: not specified	PRP	AB (iliac crest)	18	18	12	CT and histology	PRP does not provide any further benefit for bone healing
Bettega et al. (2009)	1. Private practice 2. France	Split‐mouth	LA: not specified	None	AB (iliac crest)	18	18	12	CT and histology	PRP does not provide any further benefit for bone healing
Boyne et al. (2005)	1. University 2. USA	Parallel‐group	LA: Osteotomy performed with a bur and the lateral bony wall was removed	BMP‐2 (0.75mg/mL)	ACS	18	18	4	CT and histology	BMP‐2 is safe and effective to induce bone formation in maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures to enable implant placement
				BMP‐2 (1.5mg/dl)	ACS	17	17
				None	AB and/or ALL	13	13
Cho et al. (2020)	1. University 2. South Korea	Double‐center parallel‐arms	CA: Special drilling system with hydraulic system to lift‐up the membrane	PRF	None	20	20	12	CBCT	PRF provided superior support for the elevated sinus membrane
Cho et al. (2020)	1. University 2. South Korea	Double‐center parallel‐arms		None	None	20	20	12	CBCT
Froum et al. (2013) (A)	1. University 2. USA	Split‐mouth	LA: Rotatory bur or piezoelectric for osteotomy.	PDGF	DBBM	24	24	4‐5 or 7‐9	Histology	More rapid formation of vital bone with the addition of rhPDGF may allow for earlier implant placement
Froum et al. (2013) (A)	1. University 2. USA	Split‐mouth	LA: Rotatory bur or piezoelectric for osteotomy.	None	DBBM	24	24	4‐5 or 7‐9	Histology
Froum et al. (2013)(B)	1. University 2. USA	Split‐mouth	LA: Osteotomy performed with rotary bur or piezoelectric	BMP‐2/ACS (8.4mg and 5.6 mL)	ALL	21	10	6 to 9	Histology	The group with higher dose of rhBMP‐2 combined with ALL had more newly formed bone and less residual ALL particles when compared to the group with the lower dose combined with ALL and to the control group
				BMP‐2/ACS (4.2mg and 2.8 mL)	ALL		11
				None	ALL		11
Kim et al. (2015)	1. University 2. South Korea	Multi‐center parallel‐arm	LA: not specified	BMP‐2 (1mg/mL)	HA	65	65	3	Histology	The use of BMP‐2 is safe, effective and accelerates bone formation in the early stages of healing after MSFA
Kim et al. (2015)	1. University 2. South Korea	Multi‐center parallel‐arm	LA: not specified	None	DBBM	62	62	3	Histology
Nizam et al. (2018)	1. University 2. Turkey	Split‐mouth	LA: Osteotomy performed with rotatory burs. Resorbable membrane adapted to the sinus wall	PRF	DBBM	13	13	6	Histology	RF in ABBM does not improve the amount of regenerated bone or the amount of the graft integrated into the newly formed bone
Nizam et al. (2018)	1. University 2. Turkey	Split‐mouth		None	DBBM		13	6	Histology
Pichotano et al. (2019)	1. University 2. Brazil	Split‐mouth	LA: Osteotomy performed with rotatory burs. Resorbable membrane adapted to the sinus wall	L‐PRF	DBBM	12	12	4 (test) 8 (control)	CBCT, histology and RFA	The addition of L‐PRF to DBBM for MSFA allows early implant placement with increased new bone formation than ABBM alone after 8 months of healing
Pichotano et al. (2019)	1. University 2. Brazil	Split‐mouth		None	DBBM	12	12	4 (test) 8 (control)	CBCT, histology and RFA
Triplett et al. (2009)	1. University 2. USA	Multi‐center parallel‐arm	LA: Osteotomy performed with a bur and the lateral bony wall was removed	BMP‐2 (1.5mg/dL)	ACS	58	58	6	CT and histology	BMP‐2 is safe and effective in MSFA with no marked differences in terms of newly bone formation. Vertical bone gain was superior for the control group.
Triplett et al. (2009)	1. University 2. USA	Multi‐center parallel‐arm		None	AB	69	69	6	CT and histology
Wiltfang et al. (2003)	1. University 2. Germany	Parallel arms	LA: not specified	PRP	TCP	22	22	6	Histology	PRP does not significantly contribute to bone regeneration in MSFA
Wiltfang et al. (2003)	1. University 2. Germany	Parallel arms	LA: not specified	None	TCP	23	23	6	Histology
Zhang et al. (2012)	1. University 2. China	Parallel arms	LA: Osteotomy prepared for access.	PRF	DBBM	5	6	6	Histology	PRF does not contribute to bone regeneration in MSFA
				None	DBBM	5	5
				None	DBBM		22

Abbreviations: PRF, platelet‐rich fibrin; PRP, platelet‐rich plasma; L‐PRF, leucocyte platelet‐rich fibrin; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; FDBA, freeze‐dried bone allograft; CSH, calcium sulfate hemihydrate; EMD, enamel matrix derivative; DBBM, deproteinized bovine bone mineral; BDGF, blood‐derived growth factors; AB, autologous bone; ALL, allogenic bone; ACS, absorbable collagen sponge; PRGF, plasma rich in growth factors; LA, lateral‐wall approach; CA, crestal approach; CaP, calcium phosphate; TCP, tricalcium phosphate; RFA, resonance frequency analysis; MSFA, maxillary sinus floor augmentation.