Dr. Tatum developed the sinus graft over 30 years ago. I believe that he has performed over 5000 of these procedures. That is pretty long term in my book.

While I can appreciate Tatums work, I think this answers the question better. The articles below show what we know and what we dont know. More research needs to be done.

Ann Periodontol. 2003 Dec;8(1):328-43.

Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review.
Wallace SS, Froum SJ.

Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York, USA. sswdds.sinus@sbcglobal.net

BACKGROUND: Grafting the floor of the maxillary sinus has become the most common surgical intervention for increasing alveolar bone height prior to the placement of endosseous dental implants in the posterior maxilla. Outcomes of this procedure may be affected by specific surgical techniques, simultaneous versus delayed implant placement, use of barrier membranes over the lateral window, selection of graft material, and the surface characteristics and the length and width of the implants. RATIONALE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of the sinus augmentation procedure and compare the results achieved with various surgical techniques, grafting materials, and implants. FOCUSED QUESTION: In patients requiring dental implant placement, what is the effect on implant survival of maxillary sinus augmentation versus implant placement in the non-grafted posterior maxilla? SEARCH PROTOCOL: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness were searched for articles published through April 2003. Hand searches were performed on Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, and the International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry and the bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles. In addition, researchers, journal editors, and industry sources were contacted to see if pertinent unpublished data that had been accepted for publication were available. SELECTION CRITERIA: INCLUSION CRITERIA: Human studies with a minimum of 20 interventions, a minimum follow-up period of 1-year loading, an outcome measurement of implant survival, and published in English, regardless of the evidence level, were considered. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving multiple simultaneous interventions (e.g., simultaneous ridge augmentation) and studies with missing data that could not be supplied by the study authors were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Where adequate data were available, subgroups of dissimilar interventions (e.g., surgical techniques, graft materials, implant surfaces, membranes) were isolated and subjected to meta-regression, a form of meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: 1. Forty-three studies, 3 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), 5 controlled trials (CTs), 12 case series (CS), and 23 retrospective analyses (RA) were identified. Thirty-four were lateral window interventions, 5 were osteotome interventions, 2 were localized management of the sinus floor, and 2 involved the crestal core technique. 2. Meta-regression was performed to determine the effect of the variables of block versus particulate grafting techniques, implant surface, graft material, and the use of a membrane over the lateral window. 3. The survival rate of implants placed in sinuses augmented with the lateral window technique varied between 61.7% and 100%, with an average survival rate of 91.8%. For lateral window technique: 4. Implant survival rates reported in this systematic review compare favorably to reported survival rates for implants placed in the non-grafted posterior maxilla. 5. Rough-surfaced implants have a higher survival rate than machine-surfaced implants when placed in grafted sinuses. 6. Implants placed in sinuses augmented with particulate grafts show a higher survival rate than those placed in sinuses augmented with block grafts. 7. Implant survival rates were higher when a membrane was placed over the lateral window. 8. The utilization of grafts consisting of 100% autogenous bone or the inclusion of autogenous bone as a component of a composite graft did not affect implant survival. 9. There was no statistical difference between the covariates of simultaneous versus delayed implant placement, types of rough-surfaced implants, length of follow-up, year of publication, and the evidence level of the study. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient data were present to statistically evaluate the effects of smoking, residual crestal bone height, screw versus press-fit implant design, or the effect of implant surface micromorphology other than machined versus rough surfaces. There are insufficient data to recommend the use of platelet-rich plasma in sinus graft surgery.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22 Suppl:49-70.

Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?
Aghaloo TL, Moy PK.

University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, California 90049-6603, USA.

Erratum in:

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Jan-Feb;23(1):56.

PURPOSE: A variety of techniques and materials have been used to establish the structural base of osseous tissue for supporting dental implants. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most successful technique(s) to provide the necessary alveolar bone to place a dental implant and support long-term survival. METHODS: A systematic online review of a main database and manual search of relevant articles from refereed journals were performed between 1980 and 2005. Updates and additions were made from September 2004 to May 2005. The hard tissue augmentation techniques were separated into 2 anatomic sites, the maxillary sinus and alveolar ridge. Within the alveolar ridge augmentation technique, different surgical approaches were identified and categorized, including guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay/veneer grafting (OVG), combinations of onlay, veneer, interpositional inlay grafting (COG), distraction osteogenesis (DO), ridge splitting (RS), free and vascularized autografts for discontinuity defects (DD), mandibular interpositional grafting (MI), and socket preservation (SP). All identified articles were evaluated and screened by 2 independent reviewers to meet strict inclusion criteria. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were further evaluated for data extraction. The initial search identified a total of 526 articles from the electronic database and manual search. Of these, 335 articles met the inclusion criteria after a review of the titles and abstracts. From the 335 articles, further review of the full text of the articles produced 90 articles that provided sufficient data for extraction and analysis. RESULTS: For the maxillary sinus grafting (SG) technique, the results showed a total of 5,128 implants placed, with follow-up times ranging from 12 to 102 months. Implant survival was 92% for implants placed into autogenous and autogenous/composite grafts, 93.3% for implants placed into allogeneic/nonautogenous composite grafts, 81% for implants placed into alloplast and alloplast/xenograft materials, and 95.6% for implants placed into xenograft materials alone. For alveolar ridge augmentation, a total of 2,620 implants were placed, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 74 months. The implant survival rate was 95.5% for GBR, 90.4% for OVG, 94.7% for DO, and 83.8% for COG. Other techniques, such as DD, RS, SP, and MI, were difficult to analyze because of the small sample size and data heterogeneity within and across studies. CONCLUSIONS: The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure has been well documented, and the long-term clinical success/survival (> 5 years) of implants placed, regardless of graft material(s) used, compares favorably to implants placed conventionally, with no grafting procedure, as reported in other systematic reviews. Alveolar ridge augmentation techniques do not have detailed documentation or long-term follow-up studies, with the exception of GBR. However, studies that met the inclusion criteria seemed to be comparable and yielded favorable results in supporting dental implants. The alveolar ridge augmentation procedures may be more technique- and operator-experience-sensitive, and implant survival may be a function of residual bone supporting the dental implant rather than grafted bone. More in-depth, long-term, multicenter studies are required to provide further insight into augmentation procedures to support dental implant survival

In this case you should look at the long term use and success of this method/technique. The successes much outweigh the failures. How many papers does one need? Papers have been written for decades on this topic, long after Tatum published about the lateral sinus lift.