Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a clinical retrospective study of 4–9 years

Si, Misi; Shou, Yi-wen; Shi, Yueqin; Yang, Guoli; Wang, Huiming; He, Fuming

doi:10.1111/clr.12752

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the studies with longest follow-up visit time (10 years), the 10-year cumulative implant survival rate was 100% in Nedir's study (25 implants), and 91.2% in Caban's study (31/34 implants, 3 failed implants occurred within the 1 st year) 35,36 . The lowest implant survival rate was 90.6% (87 out of 96 implants survived) over 108 months, as is reported by Si et al 38 . For the platelet-grafted TSFE, 4 out of 5 studies reported their 1-year implant survival rates, which ranged between 97.1% and 100% 7,[18][19][20] .…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Furthermore, a total of 13 articles were excluded for the following reasons: 5 for repeat with subsequent studies [22][23][24][25][26] , 3 for inconsistent follow-up visit time [27][28][29] , 3 for the inaccurate and insufficient data [30][31][32] , 1 where grafted material did not fulfil the inclusion criteria 33 , and 1 was excluded for the inaccurate demographic data 34 . Finally, 18 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, among which were 13 non-grafted TSFE [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] , 5 TSFE grafted with various platelet concentrations (PRP, PRF, CGF or PRGF) 7,[18][19][20][21] . Tables 1 and 2 shows the literature quality assessments of the 3 controlled studies and 15 non-randomized studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guo

Gulati

Shen

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to evaluate and compare the stability, quantity and quality of bone augmentation at maxillary sinus elevation sites by non-grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and platelet concentration grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (PC-TSFE). A complete literature search was performed up to April 2019. Clinical controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, and prospective cohort studies were selected based on inclusion criteria. The clinical outcomes were implant survival rate (ISR), marginal/ crestal bone loss (MBL/CBL) and endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG). Meta-analysis was conducted on these 1-year based values. Furthermore, another meta-analysis on 1-year ISR value was conducted among studies with different residual bone heights (RBH) within the non-grafted TSFE group. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 in TSFE group and 5 in PC-TSFE group. No significant differences were displayed between the 1-year ISR of TSFE (97%, 95%CI = 0.96-0.99) and PC-TSFE group (99%, 95%CI = 0.97-1.00). Among the various studies with different RBH within TSFE group, no significant differences in 1-year ISR were displayed. The 1-year MBL/CBL value of PC-TSFE group (0.73 mm, 95%CI = 0.43-1.13 mm) did not show significant difference as compared to TSFE group (0.60 mm, 95%CI = 0.10-1.10 mm). Furthermore, no significant enhancement was observed on 1-year ESBG value on PC-TSFE group (3.51 mm, 95%CI = 2.31-4.71 mm) in comparison with the TSFE group (2.87 mm, 95%CI = 2.18m-3.55 mm). Grafting platelet concentrations around dental implants at TSFE sites did not significantly enhance the adjacent bone regeneration. Moreover, TSFE was shown to be a reliable therapeutic option for implant sites that need simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation, even under limited RBH. The maxillary sinus is a cavity of pyramid shape in the maxilla with a volume of 12-15 mL. Its anterior border extends into the premolar roots or distal surface of canine roots, and the posterior border reaches the maxillary tuberosity 1,2. Due to its structure and location, the maxillary sinus sometimes challenges the proper placement of the implant and also compromises its long-term functioning 2. To address this challenge and establish an adequate bone site for implantation, direct (lateral approach) maxillary sinus lift has been suggested since its first introduction in the 1980s 3. That lateral approach is reliable to augment large quantity of bone at surgical sites, however it has strict limitations including excessive surgical trauma and prolonged healing time, which must be addressed 3. In that attempt, transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE), which is proceeded via alveolar crest, has been suggested and well implemented in clinical dentistry 4. It compresses and apically pushes the maxillary bone from alveolar crest, and thus elevates maxillary sinus

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guo

Gulati

Shen

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, maxillary sinus elevation was within 4 mm. Under these conditions, previous studies have shown that bone can be formed effectively without bone graft materials . The osteogenesis in alveolar fossa is primarily caused by blood clots around the implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under these conditions, previous studies have shown that bone can be formed effectively without bone graft materials. 30 The osteogenesis in alveolar fossa is primarily caused by blood clots around the implant. No artificial bone grafts was implanted into the alveolar socket in the test group, and the gap disappeared 6 months after operation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area: A randomized controlled trial clinical study with one‐year follow‐up

Liu

Wang

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In previous studies, immediate implant placement in molar sites has been widely applied. Purpose To study the clinical effect and feasibility of immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area. Material and Methods Patients who required implantation surgry to replace a failing tooth in the maxilla molar region were selected. Patients were randomized into two groups: immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing (test group) or delayed implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing (control group). The outcome criteria were the success rates of implants, Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) data and results of the subjective satisfaction survey performed with a visual analog scale (VAS). Results All implants had good initial stability after implantation. The survival rate of implants was 100% at 1‐year follow‐up. At the time of permanent restoration, the differences in average horizontal shrinkage of alveolar bone (W1) on the buccal side between the test group (0.65 ± 0.12 mm) and the control group (1.23 ± 0.32 mm) were statistically significant (P < .0001); however, no statistically significant difference (P = .515) was observed on the palatal side (0.3 ± 0.10 mm vs 0.28 ± 0.08 mm). The difference in vertical resorption of alveolar bone (H1) on the buccal side between the test group (0.60 ± 0.18 mm) and the control group (1.53 ± 0.19 mm) was statistically significant (P < .0001), but no statistically significant difference (P = .190) in the reduction of palatal alveolar bone (0.24 ± 0.12 mm vs 0.29 ± 0.13 mm) was observed. After 1‐year loading, no statistically significant difference (P > .05) in vertical or horizontal changes (W2, H2) were identified in the test group or control group. Patient satisfaction in both groups was similar (8.36 ± 1.01 vs 8.14 ± 1.35), and the difference between groups was not statistically significant (P = .638). Conclusion Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing is feasible for the maxillary molar area, and the clinical effect is satisfactory.

show abstract

“…These reference lines are the same as those used in the studies by Si et al (Si et al, 2013;Si et al, 2016). First, the implant axis {a} is drawn in green.…”

Section: Radiographic Reference Linesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation on Digital Panoramic Radiographs with an Image Manipulation Programme after Simultaneous or Staged Dental Implant Insertion

Sutter¹,

Turhani²,

Meier³

et al. 2018

ijSciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sinus floor augmentation is an effective method to regain bone height for the successful insertion of dental implants into the posterior maxilla. The aim of the study was to evaluate the behaviour of augmentation material following simultaneous or staged dental implant insertion, as visible on digital panoramic radiographs using the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). We evaluated one-stage (group 1) or two-stage (group 2) maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures in 19 patients, using a high temperature-treated bovine porous hydroxyapatite material. Digital panoramic radiographic measurements were captured pre-operatively in both groups, pre-implant insertion in group 2, and immediately postoperatively and 6 months postoperatively in both groups. Forty parallelwalled bone-level implants were placed in a one-stage (n=18) or two-stage (n=22) protocol, with a mean residual bone height of 4.9±1.8 mm and survival rate of 100%. Mean bone height increased by 8.6±1.6 mm immediately post-implantation and by 7.9±1.7 mm after 6 months. Mean distal and mesial bone losses after abutment connection were 0.42±0.24 mm and 0.34±0.27 mm, respectively. No significant intergroup or intragroup differences between simultaneous and staged dental implant procedures were found. Our results show that the histogram tool in GIMP is useful for documentation of the area of the augmentation material used in maxillary sinus floor augmentation.

show abstract

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a clinical retrospective study of 4–9 years

Cited by 25 publications

References 37 publications

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area: A randomized controlled trial clinical study with one‐year follow‐up

Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation on Digital Panoramic Radiographs with an Image Manipulation Programme after Simultaneous or Staged Dental Implant Insertion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About