BackgroundMucous retention cyst refers to a cyst made by expansion due to the blockage of the salivary gland near the maxillary sinus, and it is surrounded by epithelial cells. Most of them are small; therefore, they cannot be found well and are frequently with antral polyp. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical prognosis of sinus bone graft in patients with mucous retention cyst.MethodsThis study was performed retrospectively on 23 patients who had sinus bone graft. Group 1 was 8 patients (10 sinuses) who had a mucous retention cyst, and group 2 was 15 patients (17 sinuses) who had no pathologic history about the maxillary sinus. For these patients, sinus bone graft was performed using the lateral approach technique. The total 51 implants were placed 6.22 weeks on the average after sinus bone graft. Sinus membrane perforation during operation, postoperative complications, marginal bone loss after restorative function, implant success rate, and survival rate were analyzed.ResultsThere was no complication in group 1, and there were three complications in group 2. In group 2, two cases of implants failed. The types of postoperative complications consisted of two minor infections and one wound dehiscence. Two implants of total 51 implants were removed, and the survival rate of implants was 96.08 % (group 1 100 %, group 2 93.5 %). The total success rate of implants was 92.2 % (group 1 95 %, group 2 90.3 %).ConclusionsThe clinical prognosis was not affected by the presence of mucous retention cyst.

PURPOSEEarly loading of implant can be determined by excellent primary stability and characteristic of implant surface. The implant system with recently improved surface can have load application 4-6 weeks after installing in maxilla and mandible. This study evaluated the effect of healing period to the stability of hydrophilic tapered-type implant at maxillary posterior area.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study included 30 patients treated by hydrophilic tapered-type implants (total 41 implants at maxilla) and classified by two groups depending on healing period. Group 1 (11 patients, 15 implants) was a control group and the healing period was 12 weeks, and Group 2 (19 patients, 26 implants) was test group and the healing period was 6 weeks. Immediately after implant placement, at the first impression taking, implant stability was measured using Osstell Mentor. The patients also took periapical radiographs after restoration delivery, 12 months after restoration and final followup period. The marginal bone loss around the implants was measured using the periapical radiographs.RESULTSAll implants were survived and success rate was 97.56%. The marginal bone loss was less than 1mm after 1 year postoperatively except the one implant. The stabilities of the implants were not correlated with age, healing period until loading, insertion torque (IT), the diameter of fixture and the location of implant. Only the quality of bone in group 2 (6 week) was correlated with the stability of implant.CONCLUSIONHealing period of 6 weeks can make the similar clinical prognosis of implants to that of healing period of 12 weeks if bone quality is carefully considered in case of early loading.