The development of dental implantology has resulted in the advancement of surgical protocols of bone regeneration, one of them being maxillary sinus floor augmentation. The aim of the study has been to perform a clinical trial on the use of two different synthetic bone grafts and analyse their characteristics relative to biocompatibility, bone regeneration success rate, and their impact with regards to the stability of inserted implants. In order to achieve this aim 60 surgical procedures of sinus lift have been performed on a total of 43 patients. The patients were subdivided into two groups on the basis of the material used. One group of patients underwent augmentations with pure ß- three-calcium phosphate, whereas for the other group a two-phase combination of ß- three-calcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite (60% HA and 40 % ß-TCP) was used. Radiological analysis with the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), as well as the histological analysis of newly formed bone samples were performed. Radiological analysis showed a decreased homogeneity (1,37 vs. 2,34) and a less volume reduction (6,6% vs. 22,2%) after a six-month period for the two-phase materials. Furthermore, the decrease in height of the augmented area was also less pronounced following the same period (3,1% vs. 8,3%). Histological analysis of both materials has shown a regular osseous organization of the augmented area. A histomorphological comparison of both materials indicated a slightly increased proportion of the newly formed bone in the twophase material group (38,4% vs. 36,1%). Resonance frequency analysis has shown a greater change in the group in which the two-phase material was used (10,0 vs. 6,0). Bone graft substitue materials used in this study are biocompatible and support bone regeneration at the osteoconductive level. In conclusion, we observe that a slight advantage has been found for the two-phase material with respect to the pure ß-TCP regarding volume stability, radiological density of the augmented area, and secondary implant stability. In order to have a long term result assessment it would be desirable to assess implant survival rate following augmentation with both materials after longer follow-up periods of 2, 5, and 10 years.