Minimally Invasive Sinus Augmentation Using Ultrasonic Piezoelectric Vibration and Hydraulic Pressure

Kim, Jimin; Sohn, Dong-Seok; Heo, Jeong-Uk; Park, Jun-Sub; Jung, Heui-Seung; Moon, Jee-Won; Lee, Ju‐Hyoung; Park, In-Sook

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e3182746c3d

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Several recent reviews have shown implant survival rates using lateral window 2,5,7 and transcrestal techniques 8,9 for sinus elevation surgery to be more than 95%. Jensen, 7 in a review of 85 studies, reported survival rates for the rough-surfaced implants of 88.6% to 100%.…”

Section: Definition Of Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications When Augmenting the Posterior Maxilla

Fugazzotto¹,

Melnick

Al‐Sabbagh

2015

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Definition Of Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications When Augmenting the Posterior Maxilla

Fugazzotto¹,

Melnick

Al‐Sabbagh

2015

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…No experimental studies have been published on the HPISE sinus lift; only clinical studies by a single group of authors are available [37] [38].…”

Section: Hpise Sinus Lift (Silfradent/italy)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sinus Lift versus Short Implants: Results of a Prospective Radiologic Study and Critical Review of Minimally Invasive Transcrestal Sinus Lift Procedures

Schlichting¹,

Lacina²,

Fischak-Treitl³

2017

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The current discussion about the use of short implants to avoid bone-augmentation ("sinus lift") in the lateral maxilla remains a controversial topic and is increasingly at odds with the reality of evolutionary biology. Aim of the study was to determine the percentage of cases from a large routine patient-sample in which short implants might be suitable to avoid sinus lift procedures. Materials and Methods: From January 2012 to June 2015, all patients in three general dental practices in Austria with at least one subantral edentulous area were subjected to routine panoramic X-ray screening. The subantral alveolar ridge heights and the mesial extension of the maxillary sinus towards the canine fossa were measured. Statistics were performed by Excel data analysis (mean value, standard deviation). Results: 2837 patients were screened with 2837 panoramic radiographs presenting 3528 edentulous subantral regions and the subantral bone heights of 5674 maxillary sinuses were surveyed. 57.43% revealed subantral alveolar ridge heights of 4 mm or less; 24.43% of all measure-points indicated a maximum alveolar ridge height of 6 mm. In 39.32% of cases, the pneumatisation of the maxillary sinuses with a subantral residual ridge height of 6 mm or less extended as far as the anatomical position of the second premolars, in 20.51% as far as the position of the first premolar and in 10.84% as far as the canine fossa. Discussion: The sinus lift procedure will continue to be one of the basic standard surgical procedures carried out by practice-based dental surgeons who perform implant surgery since in at least two thirds of the cases short implants with lengths of less than 6 mm cannot be applied. Preference should be given to sinus liftprocedures, which can be learned safely with a minimum of time-effort, least risk of failure and lowest possible level of patient morbidity. Transcrestal hy- 2 drodynamic ultrasonic sinus lift-procedures with piezotomes seem to fulfill these basic demands.

show abstract

“…In such sites, in order to develop sufficient bone to house the implant, osteotomy preparation can include localized indirect, sinus floor elevation using osteotomes [56][57][58][59][60], specialized burs [61] or piezoelectric tips [62]. Particulate mineralized allograft or xenograft particles or autogenous PRP-fibrin clots [63] often are used in these procedures to maximize new bone formation around the implant apex.…”

Section: Managing Socket Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Deporter¹

2017

Austin J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a follow-up to a recent systematic literature review with metaanalysis of outcomes when using immediate molar implants (IMIs). An attempt has been made to offer guidelines to assist clinicians in their successful use of this treatment approach. The surgeon's ability, proper case selection, socket anatomy, and specific modifications in osteotomy preparation all are crucial in avoiding errors, complications and implant failure. While long-term data are sparse, IMIs appear to be a viable treatment option if the offered guidelines are strictly followed.Keywords: Tooth extraction; Dental implantation; Endosseous; Guided tissue regeneration IntroductionWe have recently published a systematic review and metaanalysis of literature published from November 2008 to May 2015 reporting outcomes following immediate molar dental implant (IMI) placement [1]. The search format was that recommended by the Academy of Osseointegration Workshop on the State of Science on Implant Dentistry (SSID) [2,3]. The search language used was similar to that employed in a previous review conducted by others on IMI data up to October 2008 [4]. Criteria for qualification of studies to be included in the analysis were: i) at least 10 IMIs; ii) minimum followup 1 year in function; iii) clearly reported/interpretable survival and/or success (based on crestal bone loss) data; and iv) use of rootform, solid, titanium or titanium alloy implants. Fifteen publications fulfilling these criteria were identified, none of which were doubleblind, randomized, controlled prospective clinical trials. Recognizing this limitation, our analysis supported Atieh's earlier conclusion [4] that it is possible to obtain good outcomes with IMIs with the added proviso that those of diameters >6 mm may be at greater risk of failure.There are obvious advantages for patients and clinicians in providing immediate implant replacement of molar teeth. These include fewer and potentially less invasive surgical procedures, greater patient acceptance, less chair time, lower treatment fees, shorter treatment times, and potentially fewer risks. The clinician needs to be aware, however, that achieving success with IMIs is affected by many factors. In the present paper, we have attempted to formulate guidelines for the successful use of IMIs. Considerations will include case selection, reason for extraction, quality and quantity of keratinized tissue, socket anatomy and how it impacts osteotomy preparation, implant design, and initial implant stability. Discussion Case selectionAs with all technique-sensitive surgical procedures, not all clinicians will be capable of successfully employing IMI procedures because of infrequent usage of the procedure, failure to follow

show abstract

Minimally Invasive Sinus Augmentation Using Ultrasonic Piezoelectric Vibration and Hydraulic Pressure

Abstract: The crestally approached sinus augmentation using ultrasonic piezoelectric vibration and hydraulic pressure is an additional method of maxillary sinus augmentation.

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

Complications When Augmenting the Posterior Maxilla

Complications When Augmenting the Posterior Maxilla

Sinus Lift versus Short Implants: Results of a Prospective Radiologic Study and Critical Review of Minimally Invasive Transcrestal Sinus Lift Procedures

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About