Sinus Lift Grafts And Endosseous Implants

Smiler, Dennis; Johnson, Paul W.; Lozada, Jaime; Misch, Carl E.; Rosenlicht, Joel L.; Tatum, O. Hilt; Wagner, J.

doi:10.1016/s0011-8532(22)02464-8

Cited by 257 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, several grafting procedures have been described to increase the bone volume in this region, including total or segmental bone onlays, Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional bone grafts, and grafting of the maxillary sinus with autogenous bone and/or bone substitute [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. A combination of these procedures is also possible.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants

Raghoebar¹,

Batenburg²,

Timmenga³

et al. 1999

Mund Kiefer GesichtsChir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants

Raghoebar¹,

Batenburg²,

Timmenga³

et al. 1999

Mund Kiefer GesichtsChir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…146,147 Within the past 30 years, deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft has probably become the most widely applied bone substitute when it comes to peri-implant and periodontal regeneration. [148][149][150][151] It consists of deproteinized bovine bone, with an ultrastructure almost identical to human bone and a porosity of 75%-80%. Despite DBBM has been applied with predictable long-term outcomes in association with barrier membranes for peri-implant bone regeneration, it should be noted that the use of DBBM does not enhance per se the capacity of the membrane to promote bone formation.…”

Section: Bone Graftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the past 30 years, deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft has probably become the most widely applied bone substitute when it comes to peri‐implant and periodontal regeneration 148–151 . It consists of deproteinized bovine bone, with an ultrastructure almost identical to human bone and a porosity of 75%–80%.…”

Section: The Impact Of Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone regeneration in implant dentistry: Which are the factors affecting the clinical outcome?

Donos,

Akcali,

Padhye

et al. 2023

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key factors that are needed for bone regeneration to take place include cells (osteoprogenitor and immune‐inflammatory cells), a scaffold (blood clot) that facilitates the deposition of the bone matrix, signaling molecules, blood supply, and mechanical stability. However, even when these principles are met, the overall amount of regenerated bone, its stability over time and the incidence of complications may significantly vary. This manuscript provides a critical review on the main local and systemic factors that may have an impact on bone regeneration, trying to focus, whenever possible, on bone regeneration simultaneous to implant placement to treat bone dehiscence/fenestration defects or for bone contouring. In the future, it is likely that bone tissue engineering will change our approach to bone regeneration in implant dentistry by replacing the current biomaterials with osteoinductive scaffolds combined with cells and mechanical/soluble factors and by employing immunomodulatory materials that can both modulate the immune response and control other bone regeneration processes such as osteogenesis, osteoclastogenesis, or inflammation. However, there are currently important knowledge gaps on the biology of osseous formation and on the factors that can influence it that require further investigation. It is recommended that future studies should combine traditional clinical and radiographic assessments with non‐invasive imaging and with patient‐reported outcome measures. We also envisage that the integration of multi‐omics approaches will help uncover the mechanisms responsible for the variability in regenerative outcomes observed in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The SFE procedure involves lifting the sinus membrane and placing bone graft material into the space created between the floor of the sinus and the sinus cavity. This creates additional bone height, allowing for the successful placement of dental implants in the upper jaw and improving primary stability [ 1 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Navigation Protocol for Direct Sinus Lift and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Case Report

Dotia,

Selvaganesh,

R. P.

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy associated with the use of a dynamic navigation system for the lateral window opening for a direct sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedure with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and methods: A female patient, aged 27 years, reported to the Department of Implantology seeking treatment for her lost tooth. On radiographic examination, the residual alveolar ridge height was 6 mm in the 26 (left upper first molar) region. For the implant placement, the case was planned to be carried out under dynamic navigation (Navident, Claronav, Canada). To make the lateral window accessible to the sinus floor, an implant trajectory resembling the required window dimensions and prosthetic implant position was planned. Post-surgery cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken to assess the accuracy of the lateral window and implant trajectories using Evalunav (Navident, Claronav, Canada) analysis with dynamic navigation software. Results: There was improved accuracy of the lateral window opening, and the visualization of the lateral window was maintained in real-time throughout the procedure, which was advantageous to eliminate the tearing of the thin sinus membrane. The deviations found in the trajectory of the lateral window in comparison between the planning and post-procedure were: (a) entry was deviated by 2.83 mm; (b) the apex was deviated by 2.52 mm; (c) vertically, the apex was deviated by 0.29 mm; and (d) there was an 8.93° deviation in the angulation of the trajectory. The implant that was placed simultaneously with the SFE’s accuracy was in comparison with the position that was planned: (a) entry was deviated by 0.03 mm, (b) the apex was deviated by 0.82 mm, (c) vertically, the apex was deviated by 0.82 mm, and (d) there was a 0° deviation in the angulation of the trajectory. Conclusion: Dynamic navigation technology can help overcome complications associated with direct sinus lift procedures by providing highly accurate and precise planning and execution of the surgical procedure. This can lead to improved implant stability and a reduced risk of complications.

show abstract

Sinus Lift Grafts And Endosseous Implants

Cited by 257 publications

References 34 publications

Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants

Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants

Bone regeneration in implant dentistry: Which are the factors affecting the clinical outcome?

Dynamic Navigation Protocol for Direct Sinus Lift and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About