Modified transcrestal sinus floor elevation with concomitant implant placement in edentulous posterior maxillae with residual bone height of 5 mm or less: a non-controlled prospective study

Xue, Hanxiao; Wen, J.; Liu, C.; Shuai, X.; Zhang, X.; Kang, Ning

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2022.08.014

Cited by 2 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For Q2, in addition to previous studies already included in Q1, 18 studies were identified. Of these extra studies included in Q2, fourteen studies (An et al, 2019; Andrés‐García et al, 2021; Carelli et al, 2021; Corsalini et al, 2020; Kanayama et al, 2016; Li et al, 2013, 2018; Lombardi et al, 2022; Nedir et al, 2009; Shi et al, 2020; Testori et al, 2019; Toffler, 2002; Wang et al, 2021; Xue et al, 2022) were prospective single arm cohort. The TSFA arms of studies were included from two RCTs (Liu et al, 2019; Nedir et al, 2017) and two CCTs (Nizam et al, 2020; Taschieri et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Q2, in addition to the studies included in Q1, 17 studies performed TSFA procedures using single technique, including hydraulic pressure techniques (An et al, 2019;Kanayama et al, 2016) Xue et al, 2022), and piezoelectric surgery (Li et al, 2013;Testori et al, 2019), while the remaining one reported multiple techniques (Lombardi et al, 2022). Five studies reported no use of bone graft (Andrés-García et al, 2021;Corsalini et al, 2020;Liu et al, 2019;Nedir et al, 2009;Shi et al, 2020).…”

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implant success rate was reported in four studies (Nedir et al, 2009(Nedir et al, , 2017Xue et al, 2022;Zhou et al, 2021). The results ranged from 75% to 100%.…”

Section: The Outcomes Of Studies Answering Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PROMs assessed by questionnaires were included in eight studies (Bacevic et al, 2021;Farina et al, 2018;Farina, Simonelli, Franceschetti, Travaglini, et al, 2022;Li et al, 2018;Liu et al, 2019;Lv et al, 2022;Wang et al, 2021;Xhanari et 2019;Xue et al, 2022).…”

Section: The Outcomes Of Studies Answering Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the modification of relevant surgical techniques and devices, more and more studies reported the high survival rates and predictable outcomes of dental implants together with TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm (Crespi et al, 2021;Xue et al, 2022), which caused controversy about the minimum threshold of RBH for TSFA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shi,

Han,

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis paper addressed two focused questions: Focused question 1 (Q1) “what is the clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation (TSFA), as compared to lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) in sites with residual bone height (RBH) ≤6 mm, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?”; Focused question 2 (Q2) “what is the estimated effectiveness of TSFA for outcomes in Q1, in RCTs, CCTs or cohort studies?”Materials and MethodsAn electronic search (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and hand search were conducted from January 1986 until December 2022. All eligible clinical studies expressly reporting TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm were included. The data were extracted, and the risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated. Meta‐analysis was performed whenever possible.ResultsSeven RCTs were included for Q1 and 25 studies (9 RCTs, 2 CCTs, 14 single arm cohort studies) for Q2. Q1: Meta‐analysis did not show significant difference in the implant survival, sinus membrane perforation and marginal bone loss between TSFA and LSFA groups. Q2: Meta‐analysis showed TSFA had a high implant survival rate (96.5%, 95% CI: 93.2%–98.9%) at least 1 year after surgery, and limited sinus membrane perforation (5.4%, 95% CI: 2.7%–8.8%). The results also presented higher patient satisfaction for TSFA.ConclusionWith the limitations of the present study (high risk of bias in individual studies), it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in implant survival, Schneiderian membrane perforation and MBL between two approaches in sites with RBH ≤6 mm.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implant success rate was reported in four studies (Nedir et al, 2009(Nedir et al, , 2017Xue et al, 2022;Zhou et al, 2021). The results ranged from 75% to 100%.…”

Section: The Outcomes Of Studies Answering Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Outcomes Of Studies Answering Q2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shi,

Han,

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical and radiographic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years

Decker,

Stuhr,

Testori

et al. 2024

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMaxillary sinus floor elevation is a surgical procedure intended to increase the volume of the bone vertically to accommodate dental implant placement. This intervention is frequently required for implant installation in the posterior maxilla, where the bone may be insufficient for securing implants of necessary length and stability. Sinus floor elevation can be completed either through a direct approach with a “window” through the lateral wall of the alveolar ridge or an indirect “transcrestal/transalveolar” sinus floor elevation (TSFE), which accesses the sinus floor through the crest of the edentulous ridge. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive scoping review of research conducted over the past 25 years on TSFE, specifically.MethodsA literature search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this PRISMA‐ScR‐compliant scoping review was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials, non‐randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these studies were extracted. Primary outcome measures included radiographic bone levels and implant failure >5 years. Secondary outcome measures included implant stability at time of placement and complications. Interventions reported in the selected studies were grouped based on treatment modality, which were then compared with the control therapy (traditional osteotome technique) after a minimum of 12 months healing period.ResultsOur search yielded 633 records, and after deduplication, 574 of these were screened. Application of the eligibility criteria led to the inclusion of 37 articles in the final selection. Case selection for included studies enrolling subjects: Four different transcrestal sinus elevation treatment modalities were identified: (a) osteotome, (b) piezoelectric surgery, (c) osseodensification, and (d) hydraulic techniques. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, no superior approach for TSFE could be identified. Overall, all techniques demonstrated high implant survival rates.ConclusionComprehensive understanding of the patient's medical history, available armamentarium, and post‐operative complications/management strategies are all essential to the completion of a successful TSFE approach for implant placement in the posterior maxilla, regardless of the treatment modality used.

show abstract

Modified transcrestal sinus floor elevation with concomitant implant placement in edentulous posterior maxillae with residual bone height of 5 mm or less: a non-controlled prospective study

Cited by 2 publications

References 31 publications

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical and radiographic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About