scholarly journals Implant Stability of Biological Hydroxyapatites Used in Dentistry

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Piedad Ramírez Fernández ◽  
Sergio Alexander Gehrke ◽  
Patricia Mazón ◽  
Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado ◽  
Piedad N. De Aza
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Properties ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Bone Substitute Material ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Physico Chemical ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Lifting ◽  
Sinus Floor

The aim of the present study was to monitor implant stability after sinus floor elevation with two biomaterials during the first 6 months of healing by a resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and how physico-chemical properties affect the implant stability quotient (ISQ) at the placement and healing sites. Bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation was performed in 10 patients in a split-mouth design using a bobine HA (BBM) as a control and porcine HA (PBM). Six months after sinus lifting, 60 implants were placed in the posterior maxilla. The ISQ was recorded on the day of surgery from RFA at T1 (baseline), T2 (3 months), and T3 (6 months). Statistically significant differences were found in the ISQ values during the evaluation period. The ISQ (baseline) was 63.8±2.97 for BBM and 62.6±2.11 for PBM. The ISQ (T2) was ~ 73.5±4.21 and 67±4.99, respectively. The ISQ (T3) was ~ 74.65±2.93 and 72.9±2.63, respectively. All the used HAs provide osseointegration and statistical increases in the ISQ at baseline, T2 and T3 (follow-up), respectively. The BBM, sintered at high temperature with high crystallinity and low porosity, presented higher stability, which demonstrates that variations in the physico-chemical properties of a bone substitute material clearly influence implant stability.

scholarly journals Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Yan ◽  
Xinyu Wu ◽  
Meiying Su ◽  
Fang Hua ◽  
Bin Shi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Use of Implant-Derived Minimally Invasive Sinus Floor Elevation: A Multicenter Clinical Observational Study With 12- to 65-Month Follow-Up

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eitan Mijiritsky ◽  
Horia Barbu ◽  
Adi Lorean ◽  
Izhar Shohat ◽  
Matteo Danza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Dental Clinics ◽  
Average Residual ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Age Range

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of implant-derived minimally invasive sinus floor elevation. A multicenter retrospective study was performed in 5 dental clinics. Patients requiring sinus augmentation for single implant placement were recorded and followed up. The dental implant used in this trial was a self-tapping endosseous dental implant that contains an internal channel to allow the introduction of liquids through the implant body into the maxillary sinus; those liquids include saline and a flowable bone grafting material. Overall, 37 implants were installed in 37 patients. The age range of the patients was 37–75 years (mean: 51.2 years). The average residual bone height prior to the procedure was 5.24 ± 1 mm. Of all cases, 25 implants replaced the maxillary first molar and 12 replaced the maxillary second premolar. All surgeries were uneventful with no apparent perforation of the sinus membrane. The mean follow-up time was 24.81 ± 13 months ranging from 12 to 65 months. All implants integrated and showed stable marginal bone level. No adverse events were recorded during the follow-up period. The presented method for transcrestal sinus floor elevation procedure can be accomplished using a specially designed dental implant. Further long-term studies are warranted to reaffirm the results of this study.

scholarly journals Single-Crown, Short and Ultra-Short Implants, in Association with Simultaneous Internal Sinus Lift in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Three-Year Retrospective Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 2208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Lombardo ◽  
Mauro Marincola ◽  
Annarita Signoriello ◽  
Giovanni Corrocher ◽  
Pier Francesco Nocini
Keyword(s):  
Contact Point ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Sinus Lift ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Bone Height

As the atrophic posterior maxilla often presents serious limitations for dental implant procedures, a minimally invasive technique was proposed. The study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of short and ultra-short locking-taper implants, placed in combination with a modified osteotome sinus floor elevation procedure (internal sinus lift technique) in the posterior maxilla. A total of 31 patients received 51 locking-taper implants. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed before treatment, at loading time, and after three years. Seven implants of 8.0 mm, 23 implants of 6.0 mm, and 21 implants 5.0 mm in length were rehabilitated with single-crown restorations. Implant survival at three-year follow-up was 96.08%. Pre-operative residual crestal bone height of 5.2 (1.41) (median (interquartile range)) mm increased to 7.59 (1.97) mm at the 36-month follow-up, with an average intra-sinus bone height gain of 3.17 ± 1.13 (mean ± standard deviation) mm. Mean peri-implant crestal bone loss was 0.29 (0.46) mm and mean first bone-to-implant contact point shifted apically to 0.12 (0.34) mm. It can be suggested with confidence that implants used in the study, placed in conjunction with an internal sinus floor elevation technique, can be restored with single crowns as a predictable treatment for the edentulous regions of the posterior maxilla.

scholarly journals Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Farina ◽  
Anna Simonelli ◽  
Giovanni Franceschetti ◽  
Luigi Minenna ◽  
Gian Pietro Schincaglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Direct Contact ◽  
Lateral Sinus ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Surface ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor

Abstract Objectives The present study was performed to comparatively evaluate the peri-implant bone stability and conditions of marginal tissues at 3 years following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively). Materials and methods Patients included in a parallel-arm randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE were recalled at 3 years post-surgery. Twenty-one and 24 patients in tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively, participated in the follow-up visit. Peri-implant bone support was evaluated as the proportion of the entire implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area (totCON%) on 3-year periapical radiographs. The conditions of the marginal peri-implant tissues at 3-year visit were classified as peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis. Results At 3 years, both groups showed an implant survival rate of 100%. Median totCON% was stable at 3 years, being 100% in both groups (p = 0.124). Peri-implant health and mucositis were diagnosed in 10 (47.6%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, in the tSFE group, and in 8 (33.3%) and 16 (66.7%) subjects, respectively, in the lSFE group (p = 0.502). Conclusions At 3 years following surgery, implants placed concomitantly with tSFE and lSFE fully maintain peri-implant bone support. Peri-implant mucositis was the most prevalent condition, with a similar prevalence between groups. Clinical relevance. Based on 3-year data on peri-implant bone support and prevalence of peri-implant diseases, the study suggests that tSFE and lSFE represent two equally valid options for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02415946.

Comparison of Conventional Transcrestal Sinus Lift and Ultrasound-Enhanced Transcrestal Hydrodynamic Cavitational Sinus Lift for the Filling of Subantral Space: A Human Cadaver Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Catros ◽  
Michel Montaudon ◽  
Christophe Bou ◽  
Reynald Da Costa Noble ◽  
Jean Christophe Fricain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Good Alternative ◽  
Human Cadaver ◽  
Sinus Lift ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Fresh Cadaver ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Maxillary Sinuses

The implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla may require sinus-grafting procedures due to poor quality and low volume of bone. This can be accomplished using a “lateral window” sinus augmentation or with an osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE). The hydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinus lift (HUCSL) (Intralift) is derived from the osteotome technique and allows the reduction of some of the traumatic effects of the osteotome technique. The aim of this study was to compare OSFE and the HUCSL procedures on fresh human cadaver heads. Primary outcomes were the height and width of the grafting area in the sinus floor area. Eighty-four maxillary sinuses were selected. On each fresh cadaver head, 2 sinus lifts were done using OSFE and HUCSL in the maxillary sinuses. Computerized tomography scans were performed on each head before and after the surgeries. Measurements were done on radiologic pictures using dedicated software, and the integrity of the sinus membrane was observed after dissecting the maxillae. The use of HUCSL resulted in a significantly higher sinus floor augmentation in the mesio-distal and bucco-palatal direction compared with the osteotome technique (P &lt; .001). There was no correlation between mesio-distal and bucco-palatal diameters of sinus floor augmentation when only the osteotome protocol was considered (r = 0.27 and P = .08). In contrast, the mesio-distal and bucco-palatal diameters of floor augmentation were correlated when the HUCSL protocol was considered (r = 0.79, P &lt; .001). HUCSL represents a good alternative method for sinus floor elevation.

scholarly journals Etiology and Management of Complications Associated with Sinus Augmentation Procedures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santhosh B. Shenoy ◽  
Avaneendra Talwar ◽  
Smitha Shetty ◽  
Raghavendra Vamsi Anegundi
Keyword(s):  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Systemic Disease ◽  
Sinus Augmentation ◽  
Excessive Bleeding ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Sinus Disease ◽  
Management Of Complications ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Membrane Perforation ◽  
Sinus Floor

AbstractSinus floor elevation is a predictable procedure for vertical bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior maxilla. As with most surgical procedures, complications can be encountered during sinus floor elevation/augmentation. A clinician should have a thorough knowledge of factors that can lead to complications and possible ways to manage. Presurgical evaluation of the sinus is a prerequisite in identifying the concomitant presence of systemic disease and maxillary sinus disease that may lead to postoperative complications. Despite the best efforts, one may encounter adverse events. Complications can broadly be divided into intraoperative, acute, and chronic complications based on the timing of its occurrence. The most commonly encountered complications include membrane perforation and excessive bleeding. Evaluation of anatomic deviations and sound surgical skill is required to reduce intraoperative complications. Prevention is better than cure. It is always better to know how and when a complication might occur so that the clinician might take the necessary steps to avoid it. This article reviews the management of most commonly encountered complications and the best possible ways to manage them.

Axial Triangle of the Maxillary Sinus, and its Surgical Implication With the Position of Maxillary Sinus Septa During Sinus Floor Elevation: A CBCT Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-422
Author(s):  
Junho Jung ◽  
Jung Soo Park ◽  
Seoung-Jin Hong ◽  
Gyu-Tae Kim ◽  
Yong-Dae Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Lateral Sinus ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Second Molar ◽  
Sinus Wall ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Molar Region

The aim of this study was to measure the convexity of the lateral wall of the maxillary (Mx) sinus and identify the locational distribution of antral septa in relation to the zygomaticomaxillary buttress (ZMB), in order to suggest another anatomical consideration and surgical modification of sinus floor elevation procedures. This study was designed as a cross-sectional study, and a total of 134 patients and 161 sinuses containing edentulous alveolar ridges were analyzed. The angle between the anterior and lateral walls of the Mx sinus (lateral sinus angle [LSA]), and the angle between the midpalatal line and the anterior sinus wall (anterior sinus angle [ASA]) were measured. Mean LSAs and ASAs were 105.9° ± 9.86° and 58.4° ± 6.43°, respectively. No significant difference between left and right sides was found (LSA, P = .420; right = 105.5° ± 9.27°; left = 105.5° ± 9.27° and ASA, P = .564; right = 57.9° ± 6.80°; left = 58.8° ± 6.02°). The prevalence of septa was 37.3%, and it was most frequently noted in the second molar region (32.8%), followed by the first molar (20.9%), retromolar (16.4%), and second premolar regions (14.9%). Septa were most frequently located posterior to the ZMB (49.2%), while ZMB was mostly located in the first molar region (66.4%). Narrow LSAs may complicate the surgical approach to the posterior maxilla, especially when sinus elevation should be used in the second molar region. Considering the occasional presence of antral septa, membrane elevation may be complicated when a septum is encountered during the procedure. These results suggest that 3-dimensional examination of the convexity of the Mx sinus should be performed preoperatively to choose proper surgical techniques and minimize surgical complications.

A combined lateral-crestal approach of sinus floor elevation: A report on three cases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Yuting Zhang ◽  
Jian Wang ◽  
Qianbing Wan ◽  
Lei Li
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Clinical Report ◽  
Sinus Lift ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Sinus Floor

This clinical report describes a combined lateral-crestal approach to elevate the sinus floor when placing implants on a wide maxillary posterior ridge. The buccally enlarged osteotomy broadens vision of practitioners and facilitates access of instruments in the sinus. Compared to the traditional lateral approach of sinus lift, the proposed technique may offer a more conservative treatment modality. And a clinical study with sufficient subjects and long term follow up is needed to validate the potential and limitations of the proposed technique.

scholarly journals Floating septum technique: easy and safe method maxillary sinus septa in sinus lifting procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Junho Jung ◽  
Bo-Yeon Hwang ◽  
Byung-Soo Kim ◽  
Jung-Woo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Maxillary Sinusitis ◽  
Sinus Lift ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Schneiderian Membrane ◽  
Safe Method ◽  
Membrane Perforation ◽  
Sinus Lifting ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Septa ◽  
Sinus Floor

Abstract Background The presence of septa increases the risk of Schneiderian membrane perforation during sinus lift procedure, and therefore, the chance of graft failure increases. We present a safe method of managing septa and, in particular, overcoming small and palatally located septa. Methods After the elevation of the flap and the creation of a small bony window positioned anterior to the septum, the Schneiderian membrane is lifted carefully. A thin and narrow osteotome is then placed at the indentation created at the base of the septum, and mobilization of the septum is achieved by gentle malleting. The membrane is again carefully lifted up behind the septum. Results There was one small membrane perforation case in all 16 cases, and none of these patients showed postoperative complications such as implant failure, infection, or maxillary sinusitis. Conclusions This technique is useful for overcoming the problem of maxillary sinus septa hindering the sinus floor elevation procedure, leading to fewer complications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document