Maxillary Sinus Membrane Repair: Update on Technique for Large and Complete Perforations

Pikos, Michael A.

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e318166d934

Cited by 131 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To guarantee safe placement, researchers should verify in an in vivo clinical study that there is no development of sinusitis in cases of miniscrew perforation of the sinus. A case report using miniscrews (15) supported the findings of studies on maxillary sinus augmentation (sinus-lift procedure) (16)(17)(18). It found that while small, uncomplicated perforations may heal spontaneously, larger perforations in unfavorable areas can cause inflammation and other complications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Maxillary sinus perforation by orthodontic anchor screws

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To facilitate safe placement of orthodontic anchor screws (miniscrews), we investigated the frequency of maxillary sinus perforation after screw placement and the effect of sinus perforation on screw stability. Maxillary sinus perforations involving 82 miniscrews (diameter, 1.6 mm; length, 8 mm) were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. All miniscrews were placed in maxillary alveolar bone between the second premolar and first molar for anchorage for anterior retraction in patients undergoing first premolar extraction. The placement torque and screw mobility of each implant were determined using a torque tester and a Periotest device, and variability in these values in relation to sinus perforation was evaluated. Eight of the 82 miniscrews perforated the maxillary sinus. There was no case of sinusitis in patients with miniscrew perforation and no significant difference in screw mobility or placement torque between perforating and non-perforating miniscrews. The sinus floor was significantly thinner in perforated cases than in non-perforated cases. A sinus floor thickness of 6.0 mm or more is recommended in order to avoid miniscrew perforation of the maxillary sinus. (J Oral Sci 57, 95-100, 2015)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Maxillary sinus perforation by orthodontic anchor screws

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Cheong et al 19) the frequency of maxillary sinus abnormality increased the perforation possibility among patients scheduled for operation. Pikos 20) stated that collagen membrane should be used in case of perforated size of less 5~10 mm, whereas the operation should be delayed in case of over 5~10 mm. In this research, perforation in one maxillary sinus mucous membrane occurred when the membrane was elevated, but it healed well without abnormality by positio ning Col latape ® in the perforated membrane, filling by using bone graft material and Tisseel ® , and performing simul taneous implant placement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective Study of Bone Resorption after Maxillary Sinus Bone Graft

Moon¹,

Cho²,

Jung³

et al. 2011

Journal of Korean Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, Hee-Kyun Oh 2 ·Abstract Purpose: This research sought to determine the resorption rate of bone grafted to the maxillary sinus according to the grafted material's type, patient's age, systemic disease, implant size, site of implant placement, and residual ridge height. Materials and Methods: This research targeted 24 patients who had immediate Osstem ® implant (US Plus ® ) placement after bone graft. The panorama was taken before the surgery, after the surgery, and 6 months after the surgery. Vertical height change and resorption rate of the grafted bone were measured with the same X-rays and compared. The influence of the following factors on the grafted bone material's resorption rate was evaluated: grafted material type, patient's age, systemic disease, implant size, site of implant placement, and residual ridge height. Results: Patients in their 40s had 34.0±21.1% resorption rate, which was significantly higher compared to the other age groups (P<0.05). There was no significant relationship between systemic disease and grafted bone resorption. There was no significant relationship between implant size (diameter, length) and grafted bone resorption. There was no significant relationship between the site of implant placement and grafted bone resorption. The ramal bone-grafted site was significantly more resorbed than the ramal bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site, maxillary tuberosity bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site, and ramal bone/maxillary tuberosity bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the grafted bone resorption rate in the sinus between more than 4 mm and less than 4 mm residual ridge heights. After an average of 6 months, a second surgery was done; given an average follow-up of 1.9 years, the success rate and survival rate of the implant were 96.9% and 98.4%, respectively. Conclusion: These results indicate that the bone resorption rate of grafted bone among patients in their 40s is higher compared to patients in their 50s and over, and that only autogenous bone (ramus) shows higher resorption rate than the mixed graft of autogenous bone and xenogenous graft (Bio-oss) after maxillary sinus graft.

show abstract

“…Membrane perforations can lead to the loss of graft particles into the air chamber of the sinus and have a reported incidence of 10% to 56% (Fugazzotto & Vlassis, 2003;Jensen et al, 1994;Pikos, 2008;Shlomi et al, 2004;van den Bergh et al, 2000;Wallace et al, 2007). A split-mouth study of perforated sinus membrane repair with a resorbable collagen membrane (Proussaefs et al, 2004) found that when bone particles were use, nonperforated sites demonstrated significantly more bone formation (33.58%) than perforated sites (14.17%), with a higher implant survival rate at second-stage surgery (100% vs 69.56%).…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our histomorphometric results indicate that allogeneic block grafts may offer a good solution (Chaushu et al, 2010a,b). Using a block graft, we were able to leave membrane perforations untreated (Pikos, 1999) without compromising either survival or new bone formation and without interrupting the operative procedure.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%