Endo‐sinus bone formation after transalveolar sinus floor elevation without grafting with simultaneous implant placement: Histological and histomorphometric assessment in a dog model

Qian, Shu‐Jiao; Mo, Jia-Ji; Shi, Jia; Gu, Yun; Si, Misi

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12975

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our previous study also showed that, after a 5‐year follow‐up, a favourable implant survival rate could be achieved following OSFE without bone grafting (Gu et al, ). Further studies have confirmed spontaneous new bone formation after OSFE without bone grafting in animal models (Qian et al, ; Si et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10‐year results of a randomized controlled trial

Qian

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10‐year results of a randomized controlled trial

Qian

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Qian et al. (2018) performed TSFE with simultaneous SLA or SLActive implants placement in Labrador dogs and found more alveolar bone height and percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC%) in the SLActive group at 4, 8, and 24 weeks. Meanwhile, Alayan et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, up to now, only four animal studies concentrated on that and the results are still contradictory. Qian et al (2018) conducted transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous SLA or SLActive implants placement on Labrador dogs and found a trend for a quicker bone response of SLActive implants. Alayan et al (2017) placed SLA or SLActive implants into augmented maxillary sinus of sheep and also reported a positive impact on BIC of SLActive implants at 2 and 4 weeks after surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous hydrophilic implants placement: A retrospective study of 2–5 years

Qian,

Zhao,

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a chemically modified sandblasted large‐grit acid‐etched implant (hydrophilic) in lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE), compared with a conventional one (hydrophobic).Materials and MethodsA retrospective study design was adopted. Patients who received LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were recruited. According to different types of implant surfaces, patients were divided into two groups (the hydrophilic group and the hydrophobic group). Implant survival rate (SR), endo‐sinus bone stability on the radiographs, mean probing depths, percentage of bleeding on probing, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.ResultsA total of 106 patients with 180 implants (hydrophilic:101, hydrophobic:79) in 119 maxillary sinuses were included. The follow‐up period ranged from 2 to 5 years. Three hydrophobic implants and one hydrophilic implant in four different patients failed. The SR of the hydrophilic group was higher than that of the hydrophobic group but without a significant difference (p > .05). The change and change rate of endo‐sinus bone height (ΔESBH and RΔESBH) and bone volume (ΔESBV and RΔESBV) in the hydrophilic group were less than those in the hydrophobic group, with a significant difference at 6 months after implantation. No other significant difference was found between the two groups.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, both hydrophilic and hydrophobic implants were suitable for LSFE with predictable clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, hydrophilic implants could contribute to the grafted endo‐sinus bone stability during healing time.

show abstract

“…In vitro and in vivo studies have proved the rapid and complete establishment of bone‐titanium integration in superhydrophilic surfaces, regardless surface topography . This technology has already been applied in dental implant therapies with a new chemically modified hydrophilic sand‐blasted large‐grit acid‐etched surface (SLActive), for example . However, with regard to the physicochemical modification of titanium implant surfaces by UV irradiation, the disadvantage of this treatment approach against peri‐implantitis is the limited effect of the surface modification, on late biological complications.…”

Section: Current Biomaterial‐based Solutions To Prevent Peri‐implantitismentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomaterial‐based possibilities for managing peri‐implantitis

Ávila

Oirschot

Beucken

2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri‐implantitis is an inflammatory disease of hard and soft tissues around osseointegrated implants, followed by a progressive damage of alveolar bone. Oral microorganisms can adhere to all types of surfaces by the production of multiple adhesive factors. Inherent properties of materials will influence not only the number of microorganisms, but also their profile and adhesion force onto the material surface. In this perspective, strategies to reduce the adhesion of pathogenic microorganisms on dental implants and their components should be investigated in modern rehabilitation concepts in implant dentistry. To date, several metallic nanoparticle films have been developed to reduce the growth of pathogenic bacteria. However, the main drawback in these approaches is the potential toxicity and accumulative effect of the metals over time. In view of biological issues and in attempt to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis, biomaterials as carriers of antimicrobial substances have attracted special attention for application as coatings on dental implant devices. This review will focus on biomaterial‐based possibilities to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis by describing concepts and dental implant components suitable for engagement in preventing and treating this disease. Additionally, we raise important criteria referring to the geometric parameters of dental implants and their components, which can directly affect peri‐implant tissue conditions. Finally, we overview currently available biomaterial systems that can be used in the field of oral implantology.

show abstract

Endo‐sinus bone formation after transalveolar sinus floor elevation without grafting with simultaneous implant placement: Histological and histomorphometric assessment in a dog model

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10‐year results of a randomized controlled trial

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10‐year results of a randomized controlled trial

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous hydrophilic implants placement: A retrospective study of 2–5 years

Biomaterial‐based possibilities for managing peri‐implantitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About