The impact of graft remodeling on peri‐implant bone support at implants placed concomitantly with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A multicenter, retrospective case series

Abstract

Objectives:To evaluate the impact on peri-implant bone support (as assessed on periapical radiographs) of the remodeling dynamics of varying graft biomaterials used for transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE). Methods:The study is a multicenter, retrospective series of cases undergone tSFE (performed according to the Smart Lift technique) and concomitant implant placement. At operator's discretion, tSFE was performed with bone core (BC) alone or supplemented by deproteinized bovine or porcine bone mineral (DBBM and DPBM, respectively), synthetic hydroxyapatite in a collagen matrix (S-HA), or ß-tricalcium phosphate (ß-TCP). Immediately after surgery, at 6-12 months post-surgery, and at later (≥24 months) follow-up intervals, the percentage proportion of the implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area was calculated for the entire implant surface (totCON%). Also, the height of the graft apical to the implant apex (aGH) was assessed.Results: At 6-12 months following tSFE, median totCON% was 100%, with a median aGH of 1.4 mm. A tendency of aGH to decrease in height was observed at later follow-up intervals for sites treated with all grafting procedures. In all treatment groups, the majority of the implant surface was still surrounded by the radiopaque area at the longest follow-up visits. Conclusions:Although the height of the peri-implant radiopaque area apical to the implant apex tends to reduce overtime at sites which have received tSFE, the periimplant bone support seems to be maintained long term irrespective of the graft material used.

Peri‐implant tissue conditions at implants treated with Sub‐periosteal Peri‐implant Augmented Layer technique: A retrospective case series

“…Consistently, marginal, peri-implant bone loss has been reported between re-entry for uncovering and final prosthesis delivery by other authors (Cardaropoli, Lekholm, Wennstrom, 2006, Nader et al, 2016. It should also be considered that, in some patients of the (Franceschetti et al, 2019).…”

“…In the SPAL dehiscence group, therefore, the extent of graft remodeling at interproximal sites may have negatively impacted on RBL values. Recent data have shown that even slowly resorbable graft biomaterials, such as DBBM, are associated with a substantial reduction of the grafted area at 12‐month radiographic evaluation following endosinusal augmentation procedures (Franceschetti et al., 2019). However, the magnitude of RBL observed in the present study is limited compared to that reported for implants placed with concomitant GBR or in native bone (Urban et al., 2019) and implants presenting an untreated buccal dehiscence (Jung et al., 2017).…”

Long‐term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10‐year results of a randomized controlled trial

“…Additionally, a recent study of 89 patients receiving implants concomitantly with the Smart Lift technique (Trombelli, Minenna, Franceschetti, Minenna, & Farina, ; Trombelli, Minenna, Franceschetti, Minenna, Itro, et al, ) reported that the remodelling process of graft biomaterials followed a cranial–caudal direction. In the DBBM treatment group, a significant reduction of the proportion of the implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area was observed from 6 to 36 months (Franceschetti et al, ).…”

Remodelling of sinus bone grafts according to the distance from the native bone: A histomorphometric analysis

“…The edentulous posterior maxillary region poses an especially relevant clinical challenge since sinus pneumatization following tooth loss speeds up the progression of alveolar bone loss (Esposito, Felice, & Worthington, 2014). In these cases, rehabilitation with dental implants usually demands grafting procedures (i.e., sinus bone graft, or sinus lifting) prior to or along with implant placement (Franceschetti et al., 2020; Stacchi et al., 2020).…”