Sinus Lift by Lateral Approach versus Short and Extra-Short Implants: Split-Mouth Case Series

Abstract

Introduction: The treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla is a challenge, and there are different techniques for its rehabilitation with dental implants. In the present study we compare two of the most widespread: the classic lateral approach and transcrestal elevation. Material and methods: A retrospective open-mouth pilot study was carried out to evaluate the predictability of the two surgical techniques described above. To this end, patients in whom both techniques were used (one per quadrant) were followed up and a quantification of bone loss and gain over the implant apex was carried out, as well as an estimate of survival in both groups of implants. Results: Five patients were recruited and 13 implants were inserted (8 in conventional sinus lift and 5 in transcrestal sinus lift). The mesial bone loss of the implants studied at the end of the follow-up time was 0.40 mm in the mesial zone (+/- 0.23) and 0.50 mm in the distal zone (+/- 0.34) for implants placed in traditional elevations. For implants inserted in the transcrestal elevation the mesial bone loss of the implants studied at the end of the follow-up time was 0.30 mm in the mesial zone (+/- 0.13) and 0.20 mm in the distal zone (+/- 0.24). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean bone losses of both techniques (p=0.021). Conclusions: Both techniques have proven to be predictable for the treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla in height. The use of short and extra-short implants and transcrestal elevation requires fewer surgeries and has a priori a lower risk of complications. In the patients of our split-mouth study we found no statistically significant differences between the two procedures.