A pilot-study of a minimally invasive technique to elevate the sinus floor membrane and place graft for augmentation using high hydraulic pressure: 18-month follow-up of 20 cases

Jesch, Philip; Bruckmoser, Emanuel; Bayerle, Andreas; Eder, Klaus; Bayerle-Eder, Michaela; Watzinger, Franz

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.05.014

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, many systems have been developed which rely on hydraulic pressure to lift the sinus mucosa including the Jeder-System (Jeder GmbH, Vienna, Austria) which consists of a drill with a chamber which is filled with saline solution. After the initial drilling is done, the drill is connected to a pump that produces high hydraulic pressure; the pressure is used to break the sinus floor and to lift the membrane [ 23 ]. Also, OSSTEM implants introduced the CAS kit as a method for preparing the osteotomy and elevating the membrane through hydraulic pressure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three different methods of internal sinus lifting for elevation heights of 7 mm: an ex vivo study

Alsabbagh

Nahas

et al. 2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundVarious techniques are available for elevating the sinus membrane. The aim of this study is to evaluate three methods of indirect sinus floor elevation regarding elevation heights of 7 mm on the outcomes of membrane perforation, length of perforation, and time required to perform the procedure. MethodsThree different methods for indirect sinus lifting, bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation (BAOSFE), sinus floor elevation with an inflatable balloon, and crestal approach system (CAS kit) from OSSTEM, were assessed for their ability to lift the sinus without causing laceration of the Schneiderian membrane. The study was performed on 18 freshly slaughtered sheep heads (36 sinus lifts were done, 12 for each method). CBCT images of the heads were taken to assess the best location for the sinus lift. Then, the heads were bisected and the membrane was exposed from the medial aspect. After that, each method was performed. The intended elevation height was 7 mm. If the 7 mm were not reached, the maximum height of elevation was measured.ResultsThe method used was significantly associated with the occurrence of perforation (p value = 0.014) where BAOSFE was associated with the largest number of perforations (58.4%, n = 7) compared to 8.3% and 8.3% for the balloon and CAS kit methods, respectively. The odds ratio for perforation occurrence from BAOSFE compared to the CAS kit was significant (OR = 0.091, p = .022). No significant odds ratio was found for the balloon method compared to CAS kit. Additionally, the method used was significantly associated with time of operation and with the length of perforation (p value < 0.001) where CAS kit required the longest time and BAOSFE caused the biggest perforations.ConclusionsThe study shows that both the balloon and the CAS kit were superior to the BAOSFE in terms of safety in elevating the sinus membrane. Further, in vivo studies have to prove these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three different methods of internal sinus lifting for elevation heights of 7 mm: an ex vivo study

Alsabbagh

Nahas

et al. 2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, this sinus classification offers a clear treatment guide regarding the anatomical aspects of the maxillary sinus. Class I mostly doesn’t require sinus lifting, class III is open to all approaches (lateral, transcrestal, palatal) and class II is better to be done from a lateral window or using special transcrestal lifting equipment for hydraulic detachment of the Schneiderian membrane (such as a balloon or the Jeder system) if the remnant height of the alveolar ridge requires long transalveolar working channels141516.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wagner

Dvorak

Nemec

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to analyse the posterior maxillary sinus based on its extension into the alveolar process and to provide a simple clinical classification. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in CT scans of 200 dentate and 200 edentulous patients (100 women and 100 men, respectively). After manual placement of 12 reference points morphometric analysis was performed and sinus depth, residual alveolar ridge height (RH) and the sinus opening angle were calculated. Sinuses were classified according to the quartiles of sinus depth: class I (above the hard palate), class II (0–6 mm below the hard palate) and class III (>6 mm below the hard palate). Sinus depth was found to be a reliable anatomical landmark and did not vary significantly between gender (p = 0.8940) or dentition groups (p = 0.9723). Alveolar height varied significantly between sinus classes (p < 2 × 10−16) and dentition groups (p < 2 × 10−16) but not between genders (p = 0.5178). The sinus opening angle was significantly different between sinus classes (p < 2.2 × 10−16) but not between gender or dentition groups. We propose a novel classification built upon the quartiles of sinus depth, dividing the sinuses into three classes. Our classification is the first one that represents the anatomy of the patient independent of gender and dentition.

show abstract

“…The present study supports the use of a minimally invasive implant device in a non-submerged technique for maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement. This hydraulic technique for sinus augmentation was extensively described in the literature [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Chen et al reported in 2009 a ten-year follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chen et al reported in 2009 a ten-year follow-up. The operators were able to predictably elevate the Schneiderian membrane, introduce bone graft, and place implants [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous, Non-Submerged, Implant Placement Using a Minimally Invasive Hydraulic Technique

Chaushu

Better²,

Kolerman

et al. 2020

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: To evaluate whether sinus augmentation, using a minimally invasive implant device, via a non-submerged surgical approach, might negatively influence the outcome. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by evaluating patients’ files, classifying them into two groups. Fifty patients (22 men 28 women) were included in the study, 25 in each group. The use of an implant device based on residual alveolar ridge height for sinus augmentation, radiographic evaluation, insertion torque, membrane perforation, post-operative healing, and a minimum of 12 months follow-up were evaluated. Results: The mean residual alveolar ridge height was 5.4 mm for the non-submerged group and 4.2 mm for the submerged group. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications (including membrane perforations). The mean insertion torque was 45 N/cm for the study group and 20 N/cm for the control group. Complete soft tissue healing was observed within three weeks. Mean bone gain height was 8 mm for the study and 9.3 mm for the control group. All implants osseointegrated after 6–9 months of healing time. Mean follow-up was 17.5 months, range 12–36 months. Marginal bone loss at last follow-up was not statistically significantly different: 1 mm in the non-submerged vs. 1.2 mm in the submerged group. Conclusions: Submerged and non-submerged healing following maxillary sinus augmentation was comparable provided residual alveolar ridge height >5 mm and insertion torque >25 N/cm.

show abstract

A pilot-study of a minimally invasive technique to elevate the sinus floor membrane and place graft for augmentation using high hydraulic pressure: 18-month follow-up of 20 cases

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of three different methods of internal sinus lifting for elevation heights of 7 mm: an ex vivo study

Comparison of three different methods of internal sinus lifting for elevation heights of 7 mm: an ex vivo study

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

Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous, Non-Submerged, Implant Placement Using a Minimally Invasive Hydraulic Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About