The Inlay Osteotome Sinus Augmentation Technique for Placing Short Implants Simultaneously with Reduced Crestal Bone Height. A Short‐Term Follow‐Up

Abstract

Based on the results and within the limits of the present study, it can be suggested that short implant placement in conjunction with this inlay osteotome sinus augmentation technique could yield predictable clinical results for edentulous posterior maxillary region with RBH less than 5 mm. Besides, from the clinical point of view, these techniques may reduce the indication for complex invasive procedures and simplify treatment in the posterior.

Inlay osteotome sinus floor elevation with concentrated growth factor application and simultaneous short implant placement in severely atrophic maxilla

“…The invisibility of the sinus floor has been considered to be the major disadvantage of OSFE 5 31 . However, compared with LSFE, a lower incidence of intrasurgical complications, including sinus membrane perforation, was reported using the OSFE approach 45 . In addition, a previous study showed that the occurrence of perforation was not correlated with the success rate of implants, even without grafting material 46 .…”

The impact of graft remodeling on peri‐implant bone support at implants placed concomitantly with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A multicenter, retrospective case series

“…The presence of a radiopaque area entirely surrounding the implant apex was observed post‐surgery in cases treated with either BC alone or in combination with an adjunctive biomaterial. The isolation of a BC with a trephine drill at the implant site and its implosion with osteotomes to obtain the elevation of the maxillary sinus floor has been already described in association with delayed (Fugazzotto & De Paoli, ; Kolerman, Moses, Artzi, Barnea, & Tal, ) and immediate implant placement (Soltan & Smiler, ; Teng et al, ). On the other hand, the effectiveness of the association of BC with graft materials such as ß‐TCP, DBBM, DPBM, and S‐HA is well documented for tSFE procedures and immediately followed by implant positioning (Farina et al, , ; Franceschetti et al, , , ; Trombelli et al, , ; Trombelli, Minenna, Franceschetti, Minenna, Itro, et al, ).…”

Sinus Width Analysis and New Classification with Clinical Implications for Augmentation

“…One solution of the problem is an antrostomy on the lateral sinus wall instead of a trapdoor preparation, with the cost of losing one bone‐inductive element for bone regeneration. However, narrow sinus walls, which usually complicate the traditional LSFE, could provide distinct advantages to the inlay OSFE technique . In this procedure, preparation of the recipient sites was performed using an appropriate calibrated trephine bur, ending approximately 1 mm below the sinus floor.…”

“…However, narrow sinus walls, which usually complicate the traditional LSFE, could provide distinct advantages to the inlay OSFE technique. 24 In this procedure, preparation of the recipient sites was performed using an appropriate calibrated trephine bur, ending approximately 1 mm below the sinus floor. After preparation, an alveolar bone core was found to be there.…”