Sinus Floor Elevation via an Osteotome Technique without Biomaterials.

Rodrigo Andrés-García,Blanca Ríos-Carrasco,Mariano Herrero-Climent,José Vicente Ríos-Santos,Javier Fernández-Farhall,Alberto Gómez-Menchero,Ana Fernández-Palacín,Pedro Bullón

doi:10.3390/ijerph18031103

Abstract

According to classic Hirschfeld studies, the first teeth to be lost are the first and second maxillary molars. After the teeth are extracted and the alveolar process is developed, the maxillary sinus is reabsorbed and pneumatized with a decrease in bone availability in the posterior sector of the maxilla. This process often creates the need to perform regeneration techniques for the placement of implants in this area due to the low availability of bone. The most frequently used and documented technique for the elevation of the sinus maxillary floor is elevation by the side window, as proposed by Tatum. In 1994, Summers proposed a technique that allowed the elevation of the sinus floor from a crestal access using an instrument called an osteotome, as well as the placement of the implant in the same surgical act. The aimed of the study was to evaluate the survival of 32 implants placed in posterior maxilla with bone availability less than 5 mm performing a sinus lift augmentation technique with osteotome without biomaterials. The results of this study show a survival rate of 100% for 32 implants placed in situations with an initial bone availability of 2 to 5 mm without the use of graft material. The infra-drilling technique used offers an increase in the primary stability of implants that allows adequate osteointegration Implants placed were charged at 12 weeks. In all cases, spontaneous bone formation was observed, even in cases where a positive Valsalva maneuver was observed. This proposed technique reduces treatment time and the need for more invasive maxillary sinus augmentation techniques.

Highlights

Introduction published maps and institutional affilAccording to the classic Hirschfeld study, the first teeth to be lost due to periodontal disease are the first and second maxillary molars [1]
The present study aimed to evaluate the survival rate of 32 implants placed in the posterior maxillary region in locations where bone availability ranged from 2 to 5 mm
Our study evaluated the differences in terms of bone gain around the implant apex in different anatomical situations and their relation to the maxillary sinus

Summary

Introduction

Introduction published maps and institutional affilAccording to the classic Hirschfeld study, the first teeth to be lost due to periodontal disease are the first and second maxillary molars [1]. After the posterior teeth are lost, the alveolar process is remodeled leading to alveolar bone resorption and pneumatization of the maxillary sinus resulting in reduced bone height in the posterior maxilla [2,3,4]. These changes often require regenerative techniques prior to any attempt at placement of implants in this area. Boyne and James proposed the additional use of biomaterials to elevate the Schneiderian membrane and promote bone formation [6] Some disadvantages of this technique are the associated morbidity, the required healing period for ossification of the biomaterials, ranging from 6 to 10 months, and an iations

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion