Morphometric analysis of sinus depth in the posterior maxilla and proposal of a novel classification

Wagner, Florian; Dvorak, Gabriella; Nemec, Stefan F.; Pietschmann, Péter; Traxler, Hannes; Schicho, Kurt; Seemann, Rudolf

doi:10.1038/srep45397

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, about 5%–15% of the sites remained “unclassified,” as no “class” was present in >50% of the evaluated height levels. Neither gender nor tooth‐gap extent showed any clinically relevant association with MS dimensions herein, as previously reported (Uchida, Goto, Katsuki, & Akiyoshi, ; Wagner et al, ). In perspective, it has to be pointed out that by using such threshold values based on percentiles of averages, a certain SW distance in mm, which is classified as wide at a certain height level in a certain tooth position, may be classified as narrow at a higher level in the same position or at the same level in a more posterior tooth position.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Variation in bucco‐palatal maxillary sinus width does not permit a meaningful sinus classification

Bertl

Mick

Heimel

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The bucco‐palatal sinus width (SW) appears as relevant factor for graft consolidation after maxillary sinus (MS) floor augmentation. The present study aimed to assess (a) SW at different height levels of posterior teeth, (b) possible factors influencing SW, and (c) whether a simple/meaningful sinus classification based on SW is possible. Methods The following parameters were recorded on computed tomographies of 76 edentulous and 86 partially edentulous maxillary quadrants displaying 383 tooth sites in total: (a) alveolar ridge height, (b) ‐area, (c) ‐width 2 mm apical to the alveolar crest, (d) ‐width at the sinus floor, and (e) SW and sinus area at a level 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm above the sinus floor. The possible influence of gender, tooth position [i.e., premolar (PM); molar (M)], tooth‐gap extent, and residual alveolar ridge dimensions on SW was assessed. Further, based on percentiles of average values or on the frequency distribution of SW <10, 10–15, or >15 mm, it was attempted to classify the sinus at each given site into narrow, average, or wide. Results Gender and tooth‐gap extent presented no relevant impact on MS dimensions; however, significant differences were observed among the various tooth positions regarding all evaluated parameters. The lower the residual alveolar ridge, the wider the MS at 4–10 mm height, while the wider the residual alveolar ridge, the wider the MS. Large variation in SW classes among the different height levels within the same tooth position and among tooth positions within the same person was observed, irrespective of the threshold applied. Further, at a MS height of 10 mm at PM1, PM2, M1, and M2, SW was <10 mm in 68%, 33%, 0%, and 7% of the cases, respectively, while in 3%, 21%, 65%, and 57%, respectively, SW was >15 mm. Conclusions There is a large variation in SW depending on the height level within the sinus and on tooth position, which does not permit a simple/meaningful classification of each sinus as “narrow,” “average,” or “wide.” Nevertheless, narrow sinuses (<10 mm) are rather prevalent in the premolar region, while wide sinuses (>15 mm) in the molar region; further, a wider and shorter residual alveolar ridge is associated with a wider SW.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Variation in bucco‐palatal maxillary sinus width does not permit a meaningful sinus classification

Bertl

Mick

Heimel

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wagner et al measured sinus depth from the deepest sinus point to the hard palate on computer, and provided a classification: I (above, 25%), II (0–6 mm below, 50%), and III (more than 6 mm below, 25%) in both edentulous and dentulous CT scans . Sinus depth was found to be a reliable anatomical landmark.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New classification of maxillary sinus contours and its relation to sinus floor elevation surgery

Niu

Wang

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The close proximity of the maxillary root with the antrum often leads to complications such as the spread of infection from the maxillary tooth root apex, the pushing of canal filling material through the apical foramen, or the formation of an opening into the maxillary sinus after tooth extraction or implant surgery [2]. Thus, information about the relationship between the roots of maxillary molars and the maxillary sinus floor is an important issue to consider for the treatment of the maxilla in dentistry [2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar bone height according to the anatomical relationship between the maxillary molar and sinus

Choi

Kim

Han

et al. 2020

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the available alveolar bone height between the maxillary molars and the sinus floor according to their anatomical relationship using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images. Methods: A total of 752 maxillary first (M1) and second molars (M2) on CBCT scans of 188 patients were selected. First, each maxillary molar was categorized as type 1, 2, 3, or 4 according to the relationship of the molar root with the maxillary sinus floor. The frequency distribution of each type was analyzed. Second, the shortest vertical distance (VD) of each molar was measured from the furcation midpoints of the roots to the lowest point of the sinus floor by 2 observers. Intraclass correlation coefficients and the t-test were calculated for the VD measurements. Results: For M1, type 3 was the most frequent, followed by type 2. For M2, type 3 was the most common, followed by type 1. The VD measurements of type 1 were 9.51±3.68 mm and 8.07±2.73 mm for M1 and M2, and those of type 3 were 3.70±1.52 mm and 4.03±1.53 mm for M1 and M2, respectively. The VD measurements of M2 were significantly higher in female patients than in male patients. Conclusions: Type 3 was the most frequent anatomical relationship in the maxillary molars, and showed the lowest alveolar bone height. This information will help clinicians to prevent complications related to the maxillary sinus during maxillary molar treatment and to predict the available bone height for immediate implant planning.

show abstract

Morphometric analysis of sinus depth in the posterior maxilla and proposal of a novel classification

Cited by 21 publications

References 24 publications

Variation in bucco‐palatal maxillary sinus width does not permit a meaningful sinus classification

Variation in bucco‐palatal maxillary sinus width does not permit a meaningful sinus classification

New classification of maxillary sinus contours and its relation to sinus floor elevation surgery

Alveolar bone height according to the anatomical relationship between the maxillary molar and sinus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About