Abstract
Background:Bone atrophy and pneumatization of the maxillary sinus resulting from tooth loss, associated with low bone density in the region, do not usually allow adequate quantity and quality for the installation of osseointegrated implants.Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of crestal and lateral sinus lift techniques which are performed on same patients.Materials and Methods:Ten patients who required both crestal and lateral approaches in 20 sinus lifts were selected; 31 endosseous dental implants were placed into these patients, with a reported timeline for each approach. Assessment of the surgical procedures in all patients was done using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Clinical and radiographic parameters, including Pocket Probing Depth (PPD), distance between the implant shoulder and the mucosal margin (DIM) and distance between the implant shoulder and first visible bone-implant contact (DIB), were analyzed to compare implant survival for both approaches.Results:All implants were successfully osseointegrated. No significant differences were observed between lateral and crestal approaches in PPD, DIM and DIB (p-values = 0.0504, 0.7784 and 0.18170, respectively), and in the total VAS scores (p-value ≥ 0.05). Most of the patients preferred the crestal approach due to the delay in implant placements with the lateral approach.Conclusion:Evaluation of the sinus floor elevation is more precise when both techniques are performed on the same patient. Furthermore, although post-operative vertigo is a major concern with the crestal approach; patients preferred this approach over the lateral technique because it is less invasive and required less time for the procedure.
Highlights
An implant-supported dental prosthesis can be a viable treatment option when there is sufficient quantity and quality of bone
Evaluation of the sinus floor elevation is more precise when both techniques are performed on the same patient
Postoperative vertigo is a major concern with the crestal approach; patients preferred this approach over the lateral technique because it is less invasive and required less time for the procedure
Summary
An implant-supported dental prosthesis can be a viable treatment option when there is sufficient quantity and quality of bone. The limitations of dental implant placement in the posterior maxilla, due to alveolar ridge resorption and excessive maxillary sinus pneumatization, can be overcome by Currently, two main approaches to the maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure are widely practiced. The Open Dentistry Journal, 2019, Volume 13 347 approach is the classic lateral antrostomy, and the second is the conservative Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation (OSFE) [9]. Maxillary sinus elevation to facilitate the placement of dental implants (OSFE) has gained widespread acceptance because the technique is less invasive and less time consuming [9]. A residual alveolar ridge of 5 mm is the minimum bone height required to consider the OSFE technique over the lateral approach [10, 11]. Bone atrophy and pneumatization of the maxillary sinus resulting from tooth loss, associated with low bone density in the region, do not usually allow adequate quantity and quality for the installation of osseointegrated implants
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
