Background: Maxillary sinus lift is a well-documented and accepted technique in the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. Schneiderian membrane perforation is the most common complication and may occur in between 7% and 56% of cases. Different materials and techniques have been described to achieve reparation of the perforation. The aim of this study was to establish whether the perforation of the Schneiderian membrane and its repair during maxillary sinus lift surgery results in a lower implant survival rate compared to those cases where the membrane has not been perforated. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the survival rate of implants placed in regenerated sinus using the lateral window approach, where the perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occur, was carried out. Statistical analysis was performed with Open Meta-Analyst, calculating the odds ratio of implants placed in perforated sinuses and non-perforated sinuses. Results: Ten articles were included in the qualitative analysis and seven articles in the quantitative analysis or meta-analysis. A total of 1224 maxillary sinus augmentation surgeries were performed without perforation of the Schneiderian membrane and 2725 implants were placed; 62 implants failed during the follow-up period with an overall survival rate of 97.7%. In 480 perforated sinuses, 1044 implants were placed, of which 30 failed; the overall survival rate was 97.1%. There were no significant differences between the implant survival rate of the implants in the two groups (OR = 0.78; CI = 0.49–2.23; p = 0.28 and I² heterogeneity: 0%, p = 0.44). Conclusions: Schneiderian membrane perforation, as long as it is repaired, does not appear to negatively influence implant survival rate. Membrane perforation should not be considered a reason to abort the procedure or an absolute contraindication to implant placement.

Background/Objectives: The main objective of this study was to analyze the knowledge on the use and management of antibiotics in dentistry within three different groups of interest: patients, fifth-year dental students at the University of Barcelona and professors of the faculty of dentistry of the University of Barcelona. Methods: A cross-sectional pilot study was carried out using questionnaires addressed to the three groups of interest: patients (n = 250), students (n = 79) and professors (n = 50). Sociodemographic questions were asked of all the groups. The professor and student questions were related to antibiotic therapy in relation to dental procedures. The patients were asked questions related to antibiotic management. Results: Regarding the patient group, there were statistically significant differences between the participants of the group; people without higher education were more likely to self-medicate (p = 0.043) or to be unaware of the adverse effects (p = 0.045). Regarding the student and professor groups, there were no significant differences in the prescription of antibiotics. Amoxicillin 750 mg was the most commonly used in patients without an allergy to Penicillin, but there were significant differences in the antibiotic of choice for those patients allergic to Penicillin, the most commonly prescribed being either Clindamycin or Azithromycin (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The study revealed a lack of uniformity in the knowledge and management of antibiotics among both students and professors, which highlights the need to improve university training in pharmacology and for professors to continue education throughout their working lives. It also indicates the need for patient health education regarding antibiotics.