Clinical Evaluation of Modified Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation with Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Retrospective Randomized Controlled Study

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and reliability of an improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique when applied to cases with severe bone deficiency in the posterior maxillary region, with simultaneous implant placement. Methods A total of 64 edentulous patients with maxillary bone deficiencies were enrolled in this study. Of these, 34 underwent the improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique combined with immediate implant placement, while the remaining 30 received the conventional bone chisel technique also followed by simultaneous implant placement. Radiological and clinical assessments were performed to comprehensively evaluate the practical applicability of the improved technique and compare its osteogenic outcomes with those of the conventional method. Results The mean increase in maxillary bone height was 6.016 ± 1.312 mm in the improved technique group and 2.797 ± 0.898 mm in the conventional bone chisel group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The bone coverage at the apical portion of the implant was significantly greater in the improved technique group both immediately post-surgery and 6–10 months after the procedure (P < 0.001). Similarly, the perimplant bone condition in the improved technique group showed statistically significant improvement compared to the conventional technique at both time points (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in short-term implant survival and success rates between the two groups. Notably, no complications such as maxillary sinus membrane perforation or postoperative symptoms including headache, dizziness, or discomfort were reported in the improved technique group. Conclusion The improved maxillary sinus floor elevation technique demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes for patients with insufficient posterior maxillary bone height, particularly in cases where the residual height is less than 5 mm. Although no significant differences were found in short-term implant success and survival rates, the improved technique offers enhanced bone augmentation and reduced complication risks.