Osteotome technique: A Minimally Invasive Way to Increase Bone for Dental Implant Placement in The Posterior Maxilla and Prevent Sinus Membrane Perforation for Single and Multiple Teeth Replacements

Abstract

The posterior maxilla presents with limitations due to the presence of the maxillary sinus as well as overall poor bone quality due to decreased bone density. As a result, procedures such as sinus and ridge augmentations are often required following tooth loss to prepare future implant sites for dental implant placement. The methods that are available for sinus augmentation involve the lateral (direct) approach and the crestal (indirect) approach. While a number of studies find comparable results for bone gain after sinus augmentation, the lateral approach presents with limitations including post op morbidity, and limited access for single tooth areas as well as higher potential of Schneiderian membrane damage. As a result, the crestal approach has been advocated. A number of modifications have been made to the approach to improve its efficacy since it was described by Summers in 1994 and the goal of this article is to review some of these improvements and how they have affected overall success of the technique.

Magnetic mallets – A stroke of luck in implantology: A review

“…Osteotomes and magnetic mallets are beneficial in compression and manipulation of bone and are mandatory in preserving the existing bone. [3] Magnetic mallet helps in lateral compression of bone during osteotome technique as it uses series of gradual increasing tapered instruments and do not generate heat. These are the major factors in determining the far better osseointegration success than an osteotomy in conventional way.…”

“…They are used for various procedures such as osteotomy preparation for implant placement, sinus floor elevation, ridge splitting, and also for extractions. [3] Use of osteotomes is not new in dentistry. To overcome the disadvantages of the conventional sinus lift procedure by the lateral approach, Summersin, 1994, proposed a conservative approach using a set of osteotomes.…”

To compare and Evaluate Marginal Bone Loss Around Short and Long Implants Placed in Posterior Maxilla via Conventional Drills and Osteotomes.

“…Since the literature on short implants has some deficiencies, a thorough understanding about short implants becomes an important prerequisite before placing them. 12,13,14,15,16 There are numerous classifications proposed for short implants 17 but For the purpose of this case study 6th European Consensus Conference of European association of Dental Implantologists in 2011 approved the classification given by Olate which states implant as short if their length is <8mm, medium if between 9 to 13mm and long implant if > 13mm 18 . 19 .…”

“…The placement of implants in narrow maxillary crests in a single surgical step, involving the use of expansion osteotomes,has become a routine, predictable and easy technique. 12 So to highlight the technical and biological complications associated with both short implants, and compare the marginal bone loss occurring around them when placed via surgical Osteotome and conventional drills the present study is being conducted.…”

“…Generally, most resistance is caused by a cortical opening that is too small for the osteo-tome to easily pass through. 25,24 Once the desired depth has been reached, and before moving on to the next instrument, it is advisable to wait 30-40 seconds for bone microfractures to form and dilate and compact the adjacent bone. So bone preservation, good tactile sense to the operator, facilitating short implant placement, avoiding complex grafting/ augmentation procedures as well as economic are some of the advantages of osteotomes for posterior atrophic maxilla.…”