Influence of various factors on the effectiveness of sinus lifting and the role of augmented depot morphology: a retrospective clinical study
- Authors: Bersanov R.U.1,2, Darchieva M.U.1,2, Bersanova M.R.1,2, Yusupov R.D.1,3, Ibragimov G.G.1,2, Mammedov S.M.1,2
-
Affiliations:
- Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Kadyrov Chechen State University
- Volgograd State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 30, No 2 (2026)
- Pages: 131-140
- Section: Original Study Articles
- Submitted: 05.12.2025
- Accepted: 15.04.2026
- Published: 24.04.2026
- URL: https://rjdentistry.com/1728-2802/article/view/697599
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/dent697599
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RFRPEY
- ID: 697599
Cite item
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subantral augmentation is widely used for bone deficiency in the posterior maxilla. However, the relationship between the configuration of the augmented space, subsequent bone remodeling, and long-term clinical outcomes has not been described in sufficient detail.
AIM: To assess the association between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based configuration of the augmented subantral space, augmented bone stability, and dental implant survival after sinus floor elevation.
METHODS: This retrospective observational case-series study included 193 consecutively operated patients. According to postoperative CBCT morphology, five configurations of the augmented subantral space were identified: dome-shaped elevation, sinus recess filling, uniform Schneiderian membrane elevation, transcrestal (closed) sinus lifting with a mound-shaped contour, and island-like configuration. Follow-up CBCT was performed at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and ≥5 years. Implant survival, augmented bone height changes, and inflammatory sinus-related complications were assessed. The statistical analysis was descriptive.
RESULTS: Over ≥5 years, the highest frequency of successful outcomes was observed with recess filling (100%) and uniform elevation (approximately 99%), slightly lower with dome-shaped elevation (approximately 83%) and mound-shaped configuration (approximately 62%), and the lowest with island deposits (approximately 33%). Uniform distribution of the graft and targeted correction of recesses were associated with minimal resorption, absence of significant inflammatory complications, and implant survival of 98%–100% at the five-year mark.
CONCLUSION: In this retrospective case series, the configuration of the augmented subantral space was associated with bone remodeling and implant stability after sinus floor elevation. The most favorable outcome profiles were observed for uniform Schneiderian membrane elevation and sinus recess filling, whereas island-like configuration was more often associated with unfavorable remodeling. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory clinical trends requiring prospective validation.
Full Text
About the authors
Ruslan U. Bersanov
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kadyrov Chechen State University
Author for correspondence.
Email: bersanovr@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-1557-7130
SPIN-code: 3746-6283
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor
Russian Federation, Grozny; GroznyMarkha U. Darchieva
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kadyrov Chechen State University
Email: darchieva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-2010-3101
SPIN-code: 4907-6481
MD
Russian Federation, Grozny; GroznyMakka R. Bersanova
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kadyrov Chechen State University
Email: bersanova99@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6150-148X
SPIN-code: 7216-2359
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)
Russian Federation, Grozny; GroznyRuslan D. Yusupov
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Volgograd State Medical University
Email: doctoryusupov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6137-2516
SPIN-code: 5595-9603
MD
Russian Federation, Grozny; VolgogradGinaz G. Ibragimov
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kadyrov Chechen State University
Email: ibragimovginaz@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-8718-7679
SPIN-code: 4946-8476
MD
Russian Federation, Grozny; GroznySerdar M. Mammedov
Kh. Ibragimov Complex Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Kadyrov Chechen State University
Email: serdar020396@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-5438-4625
SPIN-code: 2383-3909
MD
Russian Federation, Grozny; GroznyReferences
- Maksyukov SYu, Boyko NV, Pilipenko KD, et al. Prevention of operative and postoperative complications of open sinuslifting in patients with pathology of the paranasal sinus. Glavnyj vrach. 2019;(3):27–29.
- Khyshov VB, Klimova NA, Amkhadova MA. Long-term results of hemostatic sponge use by sinus-lift with simultaneous dental implantation. Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2013;92(3):69–72. EDN: QBDVAX
- Bersanov RU. Functional and economic effectiveness of modern methods of prosthetics for patients with defects of the dental arches [dissertation]. Moscow, 2016. (In Russ.) 24 p. EDN: HAWCWK
- Bersanova MR, Olesova VN, Zaslavsky RS, et al. Stress-strain state of implant-supported restorations in tooth replacement. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2024;28(4):432–438. doi: 10.17816/dent629415 EDN: WGQHAU
- Mamedov SM, Pleskanovskaya SA, Gulgeldiyev MA. Erythrocyte profile in preschool children with acute purulent odontogenic periostitis. Molodoj uchjonyj. 2019;(43):29–32. (In Russ.) EDN: FFVXRY
- Zheng X, Huang L, Huang S, et al. Influence of anatomical factors related to maxillary sinus on outcomes of transcrestal sinus floor elevation. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(1):438–443. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.07.023 EDN: MOSCNN
- Lyu M, Xu D, Zhang X, Yuan Q. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a review of current evidence on anatomical factors and a decision tree. Int J Oral Sci. 2023;15(1):41. doi: 10.1038/s41368-023-00248-x EDN: QZSARZ
- Starch-Jensen T, Aludden H, Hallman M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term studies (five or more years) assessing maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(1):103–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.001
- Chen J, Lu Y, Xu J, Hua Z. Clinical evaluation of maxillary sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. Arch Med Sci. 2024;20(2):384–401. doi: 10.5114/aoms/174648 EDN: LEIOFV
- Ting M, Rice JG, Braid SM, et al. Maxillary sinus augmentation for dental implant rehabilitation of the edentulous ridge: a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews. Implant Dent. 2017;26(3):438–464. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000606
- Cho SC, Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Tarnow DP. Influence of anatomy on Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus elevation surgery: three-dimensional analysis. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2001;13(2):160–163.
- Cheng X, Hu X, Wan S, et al. Influence of lateral-medial sinus width on no-grafting inlay osteotome sinus augmentation outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(8):1644–1655.
- Lombardi T, Stacchi C, Berton F, et al. Influence of maxillary sinus width on new bone formation after transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a proof-of-concept prospective cohort study. Implant Dent. 2017;26(2):209–216. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000554
- Stacchi C, Lombardi T, Ottonelli R, et al. New bone formation after transcrestal sinus floor elevation was influenced by sinus cavity dimensions: A prospective histologic and histomorphometric study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(5):465–479. doi: 10.1111/clr.13144
- Lin ZZ, Xu DQ, Wang Y, et al. Factors impacting new bone formation in transcrestal sinus floor elevation followed by implant placement: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):319. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02352-6 EDN: IXDQFU
- Mainetti G, Mainetti T, Bengazi F, et al. Variables influencing bone formation after transcrestal sinus floor elevation: radiographic and tomographic evaluations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2024;39(1):79–86. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10429 EDN: UHTPGC
- Farina R, Franzini C, Trombelli L, Simonelli A. Minimal invasiveness in the transcrestal elevation of the maxillary sinus floor: A systematic review. Periodontol 2000. 2023;91(1):145–166. doi: 10.1111/prd.12464 EDN: WHLNQM
- Zhang J, Weng M, Zhu Z, Li J. Risk factors for implant failure following transcrestal sinus-floor elevation: a case report and literature review. J Oral Implantol. 2024;50(5):482–491. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-23-00134 EDN: UROQUN
- Yu Zh, Guo Sh, Yang J, et al. Influence of anatomical factors of maxillary sinus on the remodeling of bone graft materials for maxillary sinus floor lift. Chinese Journal of Oral Implantology. 2023;28(2):82–89.
- Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Results of root-form implant retained prostheses up to 15 years: the type of bone grafted and implant stability. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2009;24(3):486–494.
- Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986;30(2):207–229.
- Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980;38(8):613–616.
- Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13 Suppl.:11–45.
- Del Fabbro M, Wallace SS, Testori T. Long-term implant survival in the grafted maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013;33(6):773–783. doi: 10.11607/prd.1288
- Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl.):216–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x
- Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):328–343. doi: 10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.328
- Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Rees J, et al. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(1):7–26.
- Tonetti MS, Hämmerle CH; European Workshop on Periodontology Group C. Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl.):168–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01268.x
- Rosen PS, Summers R, Mellado JR, et al. The bone-added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique: multicenter retrospective report of consecutively treated patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(6):853–858.
- Beretta M, Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Maiorana C. Schneider membrane elevation in presence of sinus septa: anatomic features and surgical management. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:261905. doi: 10.1155/2012/261905
- Testori T, Wallace SS, Del Fabbro M, et al. Repair of large sinus membrane perforations using stabilized collagen barrier membranes: surgical techniques with histologic and radiographic evidence of success. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(1):9–17.
- Avila-Ortiz G, Wang HL, Galindo-Moreno P, et al. Influence of lateral window dimensions on vital bone formation following maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(5):1230–1238.
- Felice P, Pistilli R, Piattelli M, et al. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. Preliminary results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5(2):149–161.
- Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:237–259.
Supplementary files






