Implant therapy in the atrophic posterior maxilla becomes challenging in the presence of reduced maxillary bone height. Sinus augmentation can be performed for resolving this condition prior to implant placement. The aim of this article was therefore to evaluate implant survival rates in the grafted sinus taking into account the influence of the implant surface, graft material, and implant placement timing. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Articles retrieved from electronic databases were screened using specific inclusion criteria, and data extracted were divided according to: graft material (autogenous, non‐autogenous, composite graft), implant surface (machined or textured), and implant placement (simultaneous with grafting or delayed). Fifty‐nine articles were included. Survival rates for implants placed in grafts made of bone substitutes alone and grafts of composite material were slightly better than the survival rates for implants placed in 100% autogenous grafts. Over 90% of implants associated with non‐autogenous grafts had a textured surface. Textured surfaces achieved better outcomes compared with machined surfaces, and this was independent of the graft material. Simultaneous and delayed procedures had similar outcomes. It may be concluded that bone substitutes can be successfully used for sinus augmentation, reducing donor‐site morbidity. Long‐term studies are needed to confirm the performance of non‐autogenous grafts. The use of implants with a textured surface may improve the outcome in any graft type.

A sound knowledge of the maxillary sinus vascular anatomy and its careful analysis by CT scan is essential to prevent complications during surgical interventions involving this region.

Blood vessels in the floor of the mouth may be in close proximity to the lingual cortical plate of the mandibular midline in most cases. This implies that bleeding can occur when the mandibular cortical plate is perforated even minimally. As a consequence, the authors suggest a careful planning of implant positioning at mandibular midline, possibly opting for the use of an even number of implants in the interforaminal region, avoiding the risk of surgical trauma to the lingual cortical plate of the mandibular midline.