Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Allograft Alone Compared With Alternate Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis of scientific literature was conducted to ascertain the superiority between allografts and other regenerative grafts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA). Review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered in PROSPERO-CRD42023392766. Electronic databases like PubMed, Google scholar and Ebsco Host were searched from 2000 to December 2022 for studies reporting MSFA using allografts or other regenerative grafts. Quality assessment of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB)-2 tool for randomized controlled trials through its domains. Risk of bias summary graph and ROB summary applicability concern were plotted using RevMan software version 5.3. The standardized mean difference was used as a summary statistic measure with random effect model and P value <0.05 as statistically significant. Four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which all 4 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Pooled estimate through standardized mean difference signifies that new bone formation was more or less similar for both graft materials, whereas regenerative grafts showed more residual bone grafts (P>0.05). Publication bias through funnel plot showed symmetric distribution with the absence of systematic heterogeneity. Both allografts and other regenerative grafts are equally effective in the MSFA in terms of new bone formation, whereras regenerative grafts showed more residual bone grafts. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials are required to establish evidence in outcomes involving sinus floor augmentation and different graft materials.