Outcomes of 6.5‐mm Hydrophilic Implants and Long Implants Placed with Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Comparison

Abstract

The results suggest that the placement of 6.5-mm short implants with OSFE is an effective alternative for the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic posterior maxilla.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of two‐window versus solo‐window technique by lateral sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: Results from a 1‐year observational phase

“…After surgery, amoxicillin (750 mg 3 times a day), ibuprofen (600 mg 3 times a day), and chlorhexidine mouthwash (0.2% 3 times a day) were prescribed for 7, 4, and 10 days, respectively. Surgery was performed under local anesthesia with 4% articaine according to a standardized protocol . A crestal incision along with vertical releasing incisions was made, followed by full‐thickness flap elevation.…”

“…Sur-gery was performed under local anesthesia with 4% articaine according to a standardized protocol. 20 A crestal incision along with vertical releasing incisions was made, followed by full-thickness flap elevation.…”

A prospective randomized controlled trial of the two‐window technique without membrane versus the solo‐window technique with membrane over the osteotomy window for maxillary sinus augmentation

“…All surgeries were undertaken by one surgeon (Q.L.). Surgery was performed under local anesthesia with 4% articaine according to a standardized protocol . Briefly, a crestal incision and vertical releasing incisions were made, followed by full‐thickness flap elevation.…”

“…Surgery was performed under local anesthesia with 4% articaine according to a standardized protocol. 16 Briefly, a crestal incision and vertical releasing incisions were made, followed by full-thickness flap elevation. In the Test Group, two separate lateral windows were prepared with a 5-10-mm bone beam left between the windows…”

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, ).…”