Implant failure and associated risk factors of transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

Abstract

Implant-supported prosthesis has become a common and reliable treatment for fully or partially edentulous patients (Howe et al., 2019).However, rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla is challenging under most circumstances due to not only insufficient residual bone height (RBH), but also poor bone quality (Al-Dajani, 2016). To tackle this problem, several treatment options have been proposed, among which sinus floor elevation (SFE) is the most commonly used approach at present (Al-Moraissi et al., 2018;Antonoglou et al., 2018).The lateral and transcrestal SFE are two different techniques to elevate the sinus floor (Boyne & James, 1980;Tatum Jr., 1986). The

Clinical outcomes and risk factor analysis of dental implants inserted with lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A 3‐ to 8‐year retrospective study

“…To date, there is no clear threshold in RBH proving critical for implant survival. According to a 3‐year retrospective study by Li et al (2023), RBH ≤ 6 mm and male sex were associated with a significantly increased late failure rate of implant after trans‐crestal sinus floor augmentation. Ha et al (2020), in a 10‐year follow‐up study, indicated that the rate of implant failure increased with a decrease in RBH ≤ 5 mm, but was not affected by RBH > 5 mm.…”

Survival analysis of implants placed simultaneously with lateral sinus floor elevation in severely atrophic maxilla: A 3‐ to 12‐year retrospective cohort study

“…Sex has been reported to be associated with implant survival in the sinus augmentation technique 9,26 . However, this correlation might be derived from the confounding effect of the smoking habit.…”

“…Sex has been reported to be associated with implant survival in the sinus augmentation technique. 9,26 However, this correlation might be derived from the confounding effect of the smoking habit. In our study, we detected an adverse effect of smoking habit on the survival curves but did not find a significant effect of sex.…”

“…One trained investigator (Zhikang Wang) used the Green Lander ® picture archiving and communication system to evaluate the imaging data. 25 The following preoperative sinus anatomical parameters were measured: (1) RBH: height of the alveolar bone at the position where the implant was planned to be placed, 26 (2) Schneiderian membrane condition: Schneiderian membrane condition was evaluated on CBCT sagittal sections and classified into "no thickening above 2 mm," "flat membrane thickening (>2mm)," "dome-like thickening," and "mixed flat and dome-like thickening," 26,27 (3) sinus width: the distance between the buccal sinus and palatal sinus walls at a 10-mm level from the residual alveolar crest, 19 (4) presence of septa: the presence of septa was identified on CBCT sagittal sections at the presumed implantation site, which was defined as "yes" or "no." 28…”

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…It has been reported that the original residual alveolar ridge height was one of the important factors in determining which SFA program to operate (Starch‐Jensen & Jensen, 2017). TSFA technique has been commonly used in cases with a residual bone height (RBH) >6 mm (Li et al, 2023). However, for cases of less than 6 mm RBH, the current expert consensus tends to recommend the lateral approach as a highly predictable and reliable approach to augment the atrophic posterior maxilla (Jepsen et al, 2019).…”