Abstract

Objectives: The maxillary sinus lift with lateral approach has always been one of the most complex procedures in terms of post-operative morbidity. For this reason efforts have been made to introduce less invasive methods. The use of osteotomes has been considered a good alternative. The main problem is linked to the perception of the patient, who considers this method particularly annoying to bear because of the percussion. To overcome this, methods with a crestal approach with rotating instruments are increasingly being disseminated.

Material and Methods: 150 patients (aged between 26 and 82) treated between January 2014 and January 2019 by sinus lift with a crestal approach were considered. At the same time of the elevation, the implant was inserted, for a total of 167. During the surgeries, various heterologous bone substitutes were used. Results: After 4 years, a survival rate of 99% of the implants was recorded. No difference was observed in terms of survival in relation to the bone substitute used, with no adverse or inflammatory reaction of the sinus membrane. No patients reported any discomfort during chewing or resting conditions.

Conclusion: The most important aspect concerns the total absence of post-operative discomfort or complications, which can be completely superimposed on those present in the case of a conventional implant surgery. It can be combined with any type of implant and survival rates do not seem to be affected by the nature of the grafting material used, as long as it is a granular material with fine grain size.

Keywords: Maxillary Sinus; Grain Size; Survival Rate

References

1. US Navy Dental School lectures to postgraduates (1968).
2. Kent J and Block M. “Simultaneous 1989 Maxillary sinus floor bone grafting and placement of hydroxylapatite-coated implants”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 47 (1989): 238-242.
3. Boyne PJ and James R. “Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone”. Journal of Oral Surgery 38 (1980): 613-618.
4. Tatum H. “Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions”. Dental Clinics of North America 30 (1986): 207-229.
5. Pjetursson BE., et al. “A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35 (2008): 216-240.
6. Summers RB. “A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique”. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 15 (1994): 152-160.
7. Summers RB. “The osteotome technique: Part 2 . The ridge expansion osteotomy (REO) procedure”. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 15 (1994): 422-436.
8. Summers RB. “The osteotome technique: Part 3. Less invasive methods of elevating the sinus floor”. Compendium (1994): 698-708.
9. Rosen PS., et al. “The bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique: Multicenter retrospective of consecutively treated patients”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 14 (1999): 853-858.
10. Davarpanah M., et al. “The modified osteotome technique”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 21 (2001): 599-607.
11. Tan WC., et al. “A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35 (2008): 241-254.
12. Pennarocha Diego., et al. “Benign paroxysmal vertigo secondary to placement of maxillary implants using the alveolar expansion technique with osteotome: a study of 4 cases”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 23 (2008): 129-132.
13. Lundgren S., et al. “Bone reformation with sinus membrane elevation: a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 6 (2004): 165-173.
14. Shlomi B., et al. “The effect of sinus membrane perforation and repair with Lambone on the out-come of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a radiographic assessment”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 19 (2004): 559-562.
15. Cricchio G., et al. “Sinus bone formation and implant survival after sinus membrane elevation and implant placement: a 1- to 6-year follow-up study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22 (2011): 1200-1212.
16. Jung JH., et al. “The effects of exposing dental implants to the maxillary sinus cavity on sinus complications”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 102 (2006): 602-605.
17. Lundgren S., et al. “Sinus membrane elevation and simultaneous insertion of dental implants: a new surgical technique in maxillary sinus floor augmentation”. Periodontology 47 (2008): 193-205.
18. Fischer K., et al. “Five-year results from a randomized, con- trolled trial on early and delayed loading of implants supporting full-arch prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19 (2008): 433-441.
19. Fischer K and Stenberg T. “Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part 1: sandblasted and acid-etched implants and mucosal tissue”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14 (2012): 808-815.
20. Chappuis V., et al. “Long-term outcomes of dental implants with a titanium plasma-sprayed surface: a 20-year prospective case series study in partially edentulous patients”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 15 (2013): 780-790.

Citation

Citation: Giuliano Garlini., et al. “Crestal Maxillary Sinus Lift with Rotating Instruments and Different Grafting Materials: Results at 4 Years Follow Up". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.11 (2020): 36-42.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Giuliano Garlini., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.