Letters to the Editor

Toffler, Michael

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e3182012e58

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is a blind technique that lacks the ability to confirm an intact sinus floor elevation without perforation and thus represented a real shortcoming [ 3 ]. Various forms of osteotome lifters were designed to guarantee safe elevation of maxillary sinus membrane [ 4 – 8 ], but all failed to prove a non-perforated elevation during the actual lifting procedures. Previously, the endoscope was used to test the efficiency of the closed sinus lifting to detect the presence or absence of the perforation by doing a large window on the lateral sinus wall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crestal endoscopic approach for evaluating sinus membrane elevation technique

Elian

Barakat

2018

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Closed sinus lifting is a unique technique in being simple and less invasive (Summers, Compendium 15(6):698, 1994). However, it is blind to assess the safety of sinus lining during lifting without perforation. Previously, sinus membrane was assessed endoscopically in an invasive way. We aimed to judge clinically the sinus membrane integrity after crestal elevation by a direct simple less invasive endoscopic visual assessment through the crestal osteotomy site. To confirm undetected perforation, the sinus membrane was monitored dynamically by introducing the endoscope through a trephined opening in the lateral wall of the sinus (Nkenke et al., Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17(4):557–66, 2002).PatientsTwelve patients suffering atrophic posterior maxillae ranging 3–5 mm bone height below the sinus membrane were included to perform closed sinus lifting with simultaneous immediate implant placement under direct endoscopic assessment.ResultsThe floor was lifted without perforation in 83.33% of cases. However, it varied according to its thickness. Minor perforations occurred in two cases (16.67%). Both perforations were detected from the crestal endoscopic view while one of them was detected from the lateral endoscopic approach.ConclusionCrestal endoscopic access gives better direct vision to the membrane than the induced opening in the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus. Moreover, it uses the same prepared osteotomy site without doing any extra procedures. Perforation depends on the thickness of sinus lining and its ability to stretch during elevation. Intact crestal sinus floor elevation can never be guaranteed under endoscopic monitoring especially with thin irregular membranes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crestal endoscopic approach for evaluating sinus membrane elevation technique

Elian

Barakat

2018

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of modified transalveolar sinus floor elevation and osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Gao

Liu

2018

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplant placement in the posterior maxilla is often complicated by the insufficient bone volume. While transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) has been proven as a predictable surgical procedure to increase the bone height in the posterior maxilla, questions in regard to the necessity of the bone grafting during the sinus lift and the question of whether TSFE could be performed when the residual bone height is below 5 mm are still debated. Furthermore, high-quality evidence comparing the clinical outcome of transalveolar sinus floor elevation with osteotome and modified sinus floor elevation with crestal non-cutting drills is limited.Methods/designOne hundred twenty adult patients who fit the inclusion criteria are being recruited from the Peking University Hospital of Stomatology First Clinical Division (Beijing, China). All patients are assigned to one of four groups according to a table of random numbers. Participants will receive (1) TSFE using osteotomes with bone grafting, (2) TSFE using osteotomes without bone grafting, (3) modified TSFE with bone grafting, or (4) modified TSFE without bone grafting. In a one-year follow-up period, implant survival rates, complications, implant stability, bone remodeling around the implant, and patient-reported outcome (visual analog scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be observed and documented. The implant stability will be gauged by the resonance frequency analysis six times (at baseline and weeks 6, 8, 12, 16, and 26), and the bone remodeling will be observed and compared via radiographic examinations.DiscussionThe result of the trial will potentially contribute to better decision making in atrophic posterior maxilla when implant placement is needed. Therefore, if the outcome is deemed favorable, the use of the modified TSFE would achieve an outcome equivalent to that of the traditional TSFE while introducing less trauma and postoperative discomforts. Separately, whether the bone graft procedure is necessary for the TSFE will also be discussed.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier number NCT03445039. Registered on 26 February 2018.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2879-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Letters to the Editor

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Crestal endoscopic approach for evaluating sinus membrane elevation technique

Crestal endoscopic approach for evaluating sinus membrane elevation technique

Clinical evaluation of modified transalveolar sinus floor elevation and osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About