Maxillary Sinus Functions and Complications with Lateral Window and Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation Procedures Followed by Dental Implants Placement: A Retrospective Study in 60 Patients

Abstract

Aim:The aim of the study was to evaluate retrospectively maxillary sinus functions and complications by using generally accepted diagnostic criteria with lateral window and osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) procedures followed by dental implants placement. Materials and methods:A group of 60 patients in whom a SFE with the two procedures (lateral window and OSFE) followed by dental implants placement had been performed were evaluated retrospectively for sinus functions and complications from the time of procedure up to 24 months using a questionnaire, conventional clinical and radiographic examination.Results: Number of patients suffered dizziness accompanied by nausea immediately after OSFE was more than the lateral window procedure and the symptoms disappeared within 2 to 4 weeks. Maxillary sinus membrane perforations occurred and small for 4 out of 79 procedures, two cases for OSFE and two for lateral window procedure had been repaired. No more complications had been detected for all the patients up to 24 months. Conclusion:Based on the results of this study, SFE with lateral window and osteotome procedures followed by dental implants placement did not interfere with maxillary sinus function and no obvious complications had been detected up to 24 months. Clinical significance:The clinician performs SFE with either lateral window or osteotome procedures needs to understand the difficulties and morbidity arising in the event of complications and must be able to correctly judge the individual risk and the presence of modifying factors that may cause these complications.

Does intraoperative perforation of Schneiderian membrane during sinus lift surgery causes an increased the risk of implants failure?: A systematic review and meta regression analysis

“…At this stage of the analysis, 42 studies were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria. Finally, a total of 58 studies met the inclusion criteria and were processed for critical review …”

Morbidity following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: A randomized trial

“…Although a higher incidence for tSFE (10%) compared to lSFE (5.6%) was previously reported in one study (Yu & Qiu, ), the majority of comparative clinical trials showed a lower frequency of this complication for the transcrestal approach. In particular, incidence for tSFE vs. lSFE was 21% vs. 58% (Krennmair et al., ), 0% vs. 10% (Cannizzaro et al., ), 1.5% vs. 13.4% (Tetsch et al., ), 4.16% vs. 6.45% (Al‐Almaie et al., ), and 0% vs. 15.4% (Temmerman et al., ), respectively. Difference in the incidence of perforations among studies and treatment groups can be explained by methodological aspects, including the extent of implant penetration and the technique to perform sinus lift (with tSFE being more relevant, as several different techniques have been used).…”

“…To date, some studies have comparatively evaluated the efficacy and safety of tSFE and lSFE (Al‐Almaie, Kavarodi, & Al Faidhi, ; Cannizzaro, Felice, Leone, Viola, & Esposito, ; Jurisic, Markovic, Radulovic, Brkovic, & Sándor, ; Kim, Park, Suh, Sohn, & Lee, ; Krennmair, Krainhöfner, Schmid‐Schwap, & Piehslinger, ; Temmerman et al., ; Tetsch, Tetsch, & Lysek, ; Yu & Qiu, ; Zitzmann & Schärer, ). Overall, both techniques were shown to have the potential to achieve substantial vertical bone augmentation with a varying degree of intra‐ and postoperative morbidity.…”

Radiographic outcomes of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: One‐year results of a bi‐center, parallel‐arm randomized trial

“…To date, studies that comparatively evaluated tSFE and lSFE either lack of a randomized design or refer to different surgical conditions between treatments (Al‐Almaie, Kavarodi, & Al Faidhi, ; Cannizzaro, Felice, Leone, Viola, & Esposito, ; Jurisic, Markovic, Radulovic, Brkovic, & Sándor, ; Kim, Park, Suh, Sohn, & Lee, ; Krennmair, Krainhöfner, Schmid‐Schwap, & Piehslinger, ; Rodoni, Glauser, Feloutzis, & Hämmerle, C.H.F., ; Temmerman et al, ; Tetsch et al, ; Yu, Wang, & Qiu, ; Zitzmann & Schärer, ). Most of them included a radiographic assessment based on bi‐dimensional radiographic examinations such as orthopantomography and/or periapical radiographs (Al‐Almaie et al, ; Cannizzaro et al, ; Jurisic et al, ; Kim et al, ; Krennmair et al, ; Rodoni et al, ; Tetsch et al, ; Yu et al, ), with the impossibility to evaluate the extent of peri‐implant bone augmentation circumferentially around the implant. Tri‐dimensional radiographic examinations such as conventional or cone beam computed tomography (CT or CBCT, respectively) were used in a limited number of studies, only in a subsample of consenting patients (Zitzmann & Schärer, ) or at very short post‐surgery intervals (Temmerman et al, ).…”