Complications of sinus floor elevation procedure and management strategies: A systematic review

Abstract

Aim This systematic review aimed to investigates the types and incidences of complications following sinus floor elevations (SFE) along with their prevention and management strategies. Materials and methods Electronic database and hand search were conducted to screen the literature published from January 1960 to June 2021. The selected studies had to report well‐described SFE techniques, complications during, and post‐SFE. Data extraction included types of SFE techniques, complications, and their treatment strategies. Results A total of 74 studies with 4411 SFE procedures met the inclusion criteria. Different SFE techniques demonstrated varying patterns for both complications and complication rates. Postoperative pain, swelling, and edema were widely reported. The most common complications that required intervention following Lateral SFE (LSFE) were sinus membrane perforation (SMP), wound dehiscence, graft exposure and failure, and sinusitis. LSFE had more SMPs and sinusitis cases compared with a transcrestal SFE (TSFE). The presence of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo following TSFE was significant in certain selected studies. Conclusion Given the inherent limitations, this systematic review showed distinct features of complications in SFE using varying techniques. Treatment planning for these procedures should incorporate strategies to avoid complication occurrence.

Sinus Mucosal Damage Triggered by Synthetic or Xenogeneic Bone Substitutes: A Histological Analysis in Rabbits

“…The extrusion of biomaterial into the sinuses has been reported both during the surgical procedure [ 6 , 7 ] or at a later stage requiring the removal of the graft sometimes [ 11 , 32 ]. Complications might be associated with sinus floor elevation [ 33 ]. Short implants have been shown to represent a valid alternative, exhibiting lower marginal bone loss compared to standard-length implants and similar survival rate [ 34 ].…”

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

“…Regardless of possible complications, studying the cone beam CT scan before proceeding with any type of surgical approach may be crucial to evaluate the residual bone height and maxillary sinus conformation and, subsequently, to make the most appropriate surgical choice [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]48].…”

“…Less than 5 mm, inadequate bone volume in the retrocanine area for tilted implant placement at least 10 mm long, impossibility of combining a tilted implant with an axial one and absence of any contraindication to sinus augmentation [15][16][17][18][19] Minimum of 5 mm [20][21][22] Less than 7 mm, adequate bone volume in the retrocanine area for tilted implant placement at least 10 mm long, possibility of combining a tilted implant with an axial one and contraindication to sinus augmentation [18][19][20][21][22] Written informed consent for implant prosthetic rehabilitation was obtained from all patients prior to the beginning of the study, and the local ethical committee approved the study; professional oral hygiene was provided before surgery.…”

“…Although tilted implants might be the least risky choice [9], the following prerequisites should always be provided: adequate bone volume in the retrocanine area for implant placement at least 10 mm in length and combination with an axial implant [19,20].…”

Clinical and Histological Healing after Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation

“…These events result in a transient thickening of the sinus mucosa [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] that might extend towards the ostium, decreasing its diameter, and compromising the patency [ 31 ]. Other complications might be wound dehiscence [ 32 ], extrusion of biomaterial inside the antral cavity [ 33 , 34 ], and sinusitis [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].…”