Indirect sinus lift without bone graft material: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Pérez-Martínez, Sara; Martorell-Calatayud, Luis; Peñarrocha‐Oltra, David; García-Mira, Berta; Peñarrocha‐Diago, Miguel

doi:10.4317/jced.51716

Cited by 37 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on these facts, it is indicated that bone grafts are not mandatory for a successful MSFA, as long as we could maintain the integrity of Schneiderian membrane and obtain a stabilized chamber for bone regeneration 50 . Studies focused on non-grafted TSFE have been performed and confirmed that such technique is reliable for MSFA sites, even in cases with limited residual bone height (RBH) 51 . Considering the longevity of non-grafted TSFE, some studies have even shown that there were no differences in implant survival rates between bone substitutions grafted and non-grafted TSFE sites 8,11 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In this study, initially we analyzed the implant survival rate (ISR) within non-grafted TSFE studies among different RBH, and no significant differences were observed on 1-year ISR among groups with different average RBH within non-grafted TSFE group, even cases with limited RBH (<4 mm) obtained favorable 1-year ISR 51,60,61 . This confirmed that limited RBH does not impact the implant survival for non-grafted TSFE surgeries, as long as secured primary stabilities are obtained on implants 51,60,61 . Furthermore, the increase in bone-implant contact area and the compression of bone during TSFE augments the bone density around implant sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the increase in bone-implant contact area and the compression of bone during TSFE augments the bone density around implant sites. This in turn can enhance the primary stability of implant at TSFE sites, which effectively reduces the fretting of implants and promotes osseointegration at implant-bone interface 51 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guo

Gulati

Shen

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to evaluate and compare the stability, quantity and quality of bone augmentation at maxillary sinus elevation sites by non-grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and platelet concentration grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (PC-TSFE). A complete literature search was performed up to April 2019. Clinical controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, and prospective cohort studies were selected based on inclusion criteria. The clinical outcomes were implant survival rate (ISR), marginal/ crestal bone loss (MBL/CBL) and endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG). Meta-analysis was conducted on these 1-year based values. Furthermore, another meta-analysis on 1-year ISR value was conducted among studies with different residual bone heights (RBH) within the non-grafted TSFE group. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 in TSFE group and 5 in PC-TSFE group. No significant differences were displayed between the 1-year ISR of TSFE (97%, 95%CI = 0.96-0.99) and PC-TSFE group (99%, 95%CI = 0.97-1.00). Among the various studies with different RBH within TSFE group, no significant differences in 1-year ISR were displayed. The 1-year MBL/CBL value of PC-TSFE group (0.73 mm, 95%CI = 0.43-1.13 mm) did not show significant difference as compared to TSFE group (0.60 mm, 95%CI = 0.10-1.10 mm). Furthermore, no significant enhancement was observed on 1-year ESBG value on PC-TSFE group (3.51 mm, 95%CI = 2.31-4.71 mm) in comparison with the TSFE group (2.87 mm, 95%CI = 2.18m-3.55 mm). Grafting platelet concentrations around dental implants at TSFE sites did not significantly enhance the adjacent bone regeneration. Moreover, TSFE was shown to be a reliable therapeutic option for implant sites that need simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation, even under limited RBH. The maxillary sinus is a cavity of pyramid shape in the maxilla with a volume of 12-15 mL. Its anterior border extends into the premolar roots or distal surface of canine roots, and the posterior border reaches the maxillary tuberosity 1,2. Due to its structure and location, the maxillary sinus sometimes challenges the proper placement of the implant and also compromises its long-term functioning 2. To address this challenge and establish an adequate bone site for implantation, direct (lateral approach) maxillary sinus lift has been suggested since its first introduction in the 1980s 3. That lateral approach is reliable to augment large quantity of bone at surgical sites, however it has strict limitations including excessive surgical trauma and prolonged healing time, which must be addressed 3. In that attempt, transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE), which is proceeded via alveolar crest, has been suggested and well implemented in clinical dentistry 4. It compresses and apically pushes the maxillary bone from alveolar crest, and thus elevates maxillary sinus

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guo

Gulati

Shen

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies, too, have reported success rates up to 90% for osteotome sinus lift technique[15161718] as the least and highest rates of success rates were 90.8% and 100%, respectively. Furthermore, in a study by Gabbert et al .,[19] a success rate of 94% was reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiological evaluation of implants placed with osteotome sinus lift technique: 19-month follow-up

Attar

Alaei

Badrian³

et al. 2016

Ann Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:Implant placement in the posterior region of the maxilla might be problematic due to poor regional bone quality. The aim of this study was to clinically and radiologically evaluate implants which were placed in the posterior region of the maxilla (with insufficient bone height) with osteotome sinus lift technique after 19-month follow-up.Materials and Methods:Twenty-four patients with posterior maxillary alveolar height ranging from 5 to 8 mm were chosen for this prospective study. After breaking of the cortical bony sinus floor, sufficient bone substitute was placed, and sinus floor was elevated. In this way, a new sinus floor was created, which was designated for further implants placement. Fifty implants were placed immediately after osteotomy sinus lift technique. The mean clinical and radiological follow-up period was 19 months (with a range of 14–24 months). Success factors such as the absence of mobility, pain, infection, and the amount of crestal bone loss were determined in this study. For data analyzing, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used.Results:After 19 months, results showed 96% success rate. Two out of fifty implants failed due to mobility. The mean depth of implants in sinus, mean height of residual crestal bone before surgery, and the mean rate of crestal bone loss were 3.8, 7.9, and 0.71 mm, respectively.Conclusion:Osteotome sinus lift technique is a noninvasive surgical method for enhancing a desired length. Furthermore, implants insertion was successful after osteotome sinus lift technique in cases with insufficient bone height.

show abstract

“…An implant osteotomy is made short of the maxillary sinus floor by about 2 mm and osteotomes are used to fracture up the sinus floor and particulate bone graft material is placed between the created implant osteotomy and the fractured sinus floor, resulting in increased eventual PMABH. This technique can be utilized without a bone graft as well [2]. Usually an implant is placed at the same time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success Rate of Dental Implants Placed in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla with Intentional Sinus Floor Perforation in Lieu of Indirect Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Report of 26 Consecutive Patients and Literature Review

Shahzad¹,

Madson²,

Shipp³

et al. 2017

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess surgical success rate of placing dental implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla engaging the maxillary sinus floor in patients with inadequate posterior maxillary alveolar bone height (PMABH). Methods: 26 patients with PMABH of 7 -10 mm had 39 implants placed between July 2012 and June 2014. These implants were placed protruding apically 1 -3 mm into the maxillary sinus engaging the sinus floor. At stage one, implants and cover screws were placed, followed by stage two, 5 -6 months later. The implants were considered osseo-integrated in the absence of symptoms, mobility and inflammation. Periapical radiographs were taken to rule out peri-implant radiolucency. Restorative treatment was completed 2 months thereafter. Patients were scheduled to have a dental exam (6 -12 months after delivery of prosthesis) and the implants were evaluated clinically and radiographically. A retrospective review was conducted to assess the surgical success rate of this treatment modality. Clinic charts, radiographs and digital implant log were reviewed for all patients with PMABH of 7 -10 mm who received dental implants in the posterior maxilla to determine the success rate of this treatment modality. Results: 26 patients who had 39 implants placed were included in the study. All implants (100%) were osseo-integrated at the time of uncovering (stage 2). None of the implants (0%) had mobility or inflammation around them. Stage 2 was successfully performed on all 39 implants (100%). All implants (100%) in these patients had been restored, and were in good condition 114without mobility or inflammation, and had been functioning well 6 -12 months after restoration. Conclusion: This study suggests that a high success rate can be attained placing dental implants in the posterior maxilla while perforating and engaging the cortical maxillary sinus floor. A future prospective study that compares this technique with the internal sinus lift would likely help elucidate this suggestion.

show abstract

Indirect sinus lift without bone graft material: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 37 publications

References 15 publications

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical and radiological evaluation of implants placed with osteotome sinus lift technique: 19-month follow-up

Success Rate of Dental Implants Placed in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla with Intentional Sinus Floor Perforation in Lieu of Indirect Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Report of 26 Consecutive Patients and Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About