Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

Clinical and radiographic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years

INTRODUCTION

Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a surgical procedure intended to increase the volume of the bone vertically to accommodate dental implant placement. This intervention is frequently required for implant installation in the posterior maxilla, where the bone may be insufficient for securing implants of necessary length and stability. Sinus floor elevation can be completed either through a direct approach with a "window" through the lateral wall of the alveolar ridge or an indirect "transcrestal/transalveolar" sinus floor elevation (TSFE), which accesses the sinus floor through the crest of the edentulous ridge. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive scoping review of research conducted over the past 25 years on TSFE, specifically.

METHODS

A literature search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this PRISMA-ScR-compliant scoping review was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series that met the eligibility criteria were selected. Relevant data from these studies were extracted. Primary outcome measures included radiographic bone levels and implant failure >5 years. Secondary outcome measures included implant stability at time of placement and complications. Interventions reported in the selected studies were grouped based on treatment modality, which were then compared with the control therapy (traditional osteotome technique) after a minimum of 12 months healing period.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 633 records, and after deduplication, 574 of these were screened. Application of the eligibility criteria led to the inclusion of 37 articles in the final selection. Case selection for included studies enrolling subjects: Four different transcrestal sinus elevation treatment modalities were identified: (a) osteotome, (b) piezoelectric surgery, (c) osseodensification, and (d) hydraulic techniques. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, no superior approach for TSFE could be identified. Overall, all techniques demonstrated high implant survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive understanding of the patient's medical history, available armamentarium, and post-operative complications/management strategies are all essential to the completion of a successful TSFE approach for implant placement in the posterior maxilla, regardless of the treatment modality used.

Treatment alternatives for the rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous maxilla

Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can represent a significant clinical challenge due to limited bone availability and surgical access, among other factors. This review addresses several treatment options to replace missing teeth in posterior maxillary segments, namely the placement of standard implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation, short implants, tilted implants, and distal cantilever extensions. Pertinent technical information and a concise summary of relevant evidence on the reported outcomes of these different therapeutic approaches are presented, along with a set of clinical guidelines to facilitate decision-making processes and optimize the outcomes of therapy.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation with injectable xenogenous bone substitute in gel form: a prospective multicenter study

Purpose

To investigate clinical and radiographic outcomes of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation performed with an injectable xenograft in gel form, analyzing general, local and surgical variables possibly influencing the results.

Methods

Patients with residual crestal height < 5 mm underwent transcrestal sinus floor elevation with xenograft in gel form to allow the placement of a single implant. Simultaneous implant placement was performed when primary stability was ≥ 15 Ncm. Graft height was measured immediately after surgery (T0) and after 6 months of healing (T1). Univariate and multivariate regression models were built to assess associations between clinical variables with implant survival and graft height at T1.

Results

71 patients underwent transcrestal sinus floor elevation and 54 implants were simultaneously placed. Delayed implant placement (at T1) was possible in 5 cases out of 17 (29.4%), whereas in 12 patients (70.6%) implant insertion was not possible or required additional sinus grafting. Implant survival rate, with a follow-up varying from 12 to 32 months after loading, was 100%. Mean pre-operative bone height was 3.8 ± 1.0 mm, at T0 was 13.9 ± 2.2 mm and at T1 was 9.9 ± 2.8 mm. Bone height at T1 was negatively influenced by membrane perforation at surgery (p = 0.004) and positively influenced by immediate implant insertion (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Transcrestal sinus floor elevation performed with injectable xenograft gel resulted in 100% implant survival rate. However, immediate implant insertion seems a crucial factor to preserve vertical bone gain: one-stage technique seems to be the most predictable approach to optimize clinical outcomes with this approach.

Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05305521. Registered 31 March 2022—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05305521.

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.

Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial

Objectives

The present study was performed to comparatively evaluate the peri-implant bone stability and conditions of marginal tissues at 3 years following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively).

Materials and methods

Patients included in a parallel-arm randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE were recalled at 3 years post-surgery. Twenty-one and 24 patients in tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively, participated in the follow-up visit. Peri-implant bone support was evaluated as the proportion of the entire implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area (totCON%) on 3-year periapical radiographs. The conditions of the marginal peri-implant tissues at 3-year visit were classified as peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis.

Results

At 3 years, both groups showed an implant survival rate of 100%. Median totCON% was stable at 3 years, being 100% in both groups (p = 0.124). Peri-implant health and mucositis were diagnosed in 10 (47.6%) and 11 (52.4%) patients, respectively, in the tSFE group, and in 8 (33.3%) and 16 (66.7%) subjects, respectively, in the lSFE group (p = 0.502).

Conclusions

At 3 years following surgery, implants placed concomitantly with tSFE and lSFE fully maintain peri-implant bone support. Peri-implant mucositis was the most prevalent condition, with a similar prevalence between groups.

Clinical relevance.

Based on 3-year data on peri-implant bone support and prevalence of peri-implant diseases, the study suggests that tSFE and lSFE represent two equally valid options for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02415946.