Dental Implants Survival After Nasal Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this work is to assess the clinical outcomes of implants placed after a nasal floor elevation procedure. Methods A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “In patients undergoing dental implant placement in the maxillary anterior region (P), Do implants placed after nasal floor elevation (I) have a different survival (O) from those implants placed without grafting procedures (C)?. The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229479). Included articles quality was assessed using the “NIH quality assessment tool”, “The Newcastle-Ottawa scale” and “JBI critical appraisal tools for case reports''. Results Twelve articles were finally selected, including 151 patients and 460 implants. The weighted mean follow-up was 32.2 months, and the weighted survival rate after this period was 97.64% (range 89.2-100%). No statistical differences could be inferred between the treatments performed in one-stage or two-stage, following a lateral approach or a transcrestal approach or using different grafting materials. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, implants placed after a nasal floor elevation present a good survival and a low range of complications. In absence of randomized studies, the level of evidence was low, attending the GRADE system and based on the study quality level, the strength of evidence attending the SORT taxonomy was B.

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

“…Advances in root-shape implants design and size (short, extra-short and narrow implants) have provided new solutions or have enhanced older ones, for the treatment of different types of bone atrophy [ 19 – 21 ]. Different accessory surgical techniques for recovering the lost bone volume were also developed and improved to treat those patients where root-shape implants could not be placed directly [ 22 – 26 ]. Among them, guided bone regeneration (GBR), maxillary sinus and nasal floor augmentation, inlay or onlay bone grafting, distraction osteogenesis, nerve lateralization or others have been routinely employed with a varying degree of clinical success [ 22 – 26 ].…”

“…Different accessory surgical techniques for recovering the lost bone volume were also developed and improved to treat those patients where root-shape implants could not be placed directly [ 22 – 26 ]. Among them, guided bone regeneration (GBR), maxillary sinus and nasal floor augmentation, inlay or onlay bone grafting, distraction osteogenesis, nerve lateralization or others have been routinely employed with a varying degree of clinical success [ 22 – 26 ]. The use of zygomatic implants could be also a reliable option for the treatment of those patients with severe posterior maxillary atrophy [ 27 ].…”