A simplified approach to the minimally invasive antral membrane elevation technique utilizing a viscoelastic medium for hydraulic sinus floor elevation

Kotsakis, Georgios A.; Mazor, Ziv

doi:10.1007/s10006-014-0473-2

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

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

show abstract

“…This is consistent with other studies. The pneumatization of the maxiallary sinus stabilizes after the initial three years shrinkage (Kotsakis & Mazor 2015)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthetic putty and simultaneous short implant placement in crestal sinus lifting procedures: 13–36 months follow-up - a case series

Boogaard¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the balloon technique is an indirect sinus elevation method [34], performed with application of a balloon via a transcrestal approach that elevates the sinus membrane while the balloon inlates. Another method used does not involve a bone graft.…”

Section: Paranasal Sinuses 48mentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Sinus Augmentation for Dental Implants

Göçmen¹,

Özkan²

2017

Paranasal Sinuses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pneumatization of the maxillary sinus secondary to posterior maxillary tooth loss is an extremely common inding. Signiicant atrophy of the maxilla prevents dental implant placement in this region. Grafting the loor of the maxillary sinus has emerged as the most common surgical modality for correcting this inadequacy. Graft material is introduced into the space created inferior to the sinus membrane. Various grafting materials and techniques might be used in this procedure. The aim of this article is to review the essentials of maxillary sinus augmentation, clarify this procedure for otolaryngologists, explain its function, and describe the augmentation materials, techniques, and complications.

show abstract

A simplified approach to the minimally invasive antral membrane elevation technique utilizing a viscoelastic medium for hydraulic sinus floor elevation

Abstract: This simplified technique may make the minimally invasive antral membrane elevation technique more accessible to implant surgeons as it eliminates the need for purchase of specialized equipment and aids in further decrease of intra-operative time accomplished with the original technique.

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Synthetic putty and simultaneous short implant placement in crestal sinus lifting procedures: 13–36 months follow-up - a case series

Maxillary Sinus Augmentation for Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About