Prosthetic Rehabilitation of the Posterior Atrophic Maxilla, Short (≤6 mm) or Long (≥10 mm) Dental Implants? A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis: Naples Consensus Report Working Group A

Biomechanical Basis for Bone Healing and Osseointegration of Implants in Sinus Grafts

A thorough comprehension of the mechanisms controlling new bone formation and implant osseointegration after maxillary sinus floor elevation is crucial for aligning our treatment choices with biological principles and enhancing clinical outcomes. The goal of bone regeneration in sinus lift procedures is to provide a sufficient amount of newly-formed tissue to support implant osseointegration. However, it is still unclear whether there is a minimum quantity of vital bone within the newly-formed tissue required for effective support, though it is generally assumed that vital bone is essential for this process. The source and integration of new bone in maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures remain debated. Most clinical studies suggest a paramount role for sinus floor and bony walls, with a centripetal pattern of new bone formation, while conflicting reports exist regarding the osteogenic role of the Schneiderian membrane. The influence of mechanical input on peri-implant bone formation, mineralization, and maturation is significant, with bone remodeling regulated by mechanical strains generated during loading. Defining optimal loading for implants, particularly in sinus lift procedures, is challenging, as early loading may damage interfacial tissue, interfering with osteogenesis. Differences in osseointegration dynamics between native and augmented bone may arise from biological and mechanical factors, but also from patient-specific factors which should be evaluated in treatment planning. Factors to consider include sinus anatomy, patient and site-specific regenerative potential, and the selection of graft material that matches the osteogenic and mechanical requirements. Tailored approaches integrating patient-specific considerations and refined implant strategies will enhance predictability and longevity of treatment.

Implant-supported prosthesis under progressive loading protocol stimulates alveolar bone growth in patients with severe alveolar bone atrophy. Retrospective case series

Introduction

The jaw with severe bone atrophy is a difficult challenge when rehabilitating with dental implants. To be able to place dental implants in the most severe cases and to achieve an increase in bone volume by means of the tension transmitted by the load is a novelty. This work provides data on the alveolar bone changes in a severely atrophic mandible that has been treated with implant supported prosthesis under progressive loading protocol.

Material and methods

This study reported on 3 patients with completely edentulous mandible. In all cases, implants were inserted in the anterior region of the mandible and progressive loading was carried out with an increase in the distal cantilever. The length of the cantilever extension was adapted to growth of the residual alveolar bone at the mandible body. The increase in bone height was controlled in the area of implant placement as well as in the area distal to the implants (1 cm behind the last implant).

Results

This case series described 3 patients where 13 implants were placed. The patients were followed for 17, 19 and 20 years after implants insertion. The mean mandibular residual height of the alveolar bone was 7.8 ± 2.7 mm at the implant site. The mean mandibular body height at 1.0 cm distal to the last implant was 7.0 ± 3.9 mm in the third quadrant and 8.1 ± 4.4 mm in the fourth quadrant. The mean height at the last follow-up was 11.0 ± 3.2 mm (±3.2) in the third quadrant and 11.20 ± 4.4 mm in the fourth quadrant.

Conclusions

Implant-supported prosthesis and progressive loading have resulted in vertical bone growth in a series of patients with extreme atrophy of the mandible. The long-term follow-up indicated that bone growth is confined to the dental implants but has been extended to distant regions resulting in the thickening of the mandibular body and the creation of the absent mandibular canal.

Biomechanical considerations of chemical structure and biosafety of current ceramic biomaterials for dentistry: review and outlook of the current state of the art

Biomaterial refers to any material, non-pharmaceutical or combination of substances of synthetic or natural origin used for any period independently or as part of a system for the purpose of healing, assisting the growth or replacement of tissues, organs or functions of the body. It is an unsustainable material that interacts with biological systems. Before being produced a biomaterial goes through a sequence of steps, which includes: 1) the definition of the problem that the material will be called to solve (treatment, replacement of the instrument, aesthetic reasons); 2) design of the device, composition and control of materials (mechanical properties, toxicity, biological response, corrosion resistance, interaction with proteins, cells and tissues), manufacture, sterilization and standardization; 3) control of the device (in experimental animals, in vitro) clinical studies, studies; and 4) monitor its long-term use in vivo, in vitro and in patients. Research for ceramic materials is evolving and because they can be porous or glassy, they find applications in medicine and biotechnology, as they can be used as fillers, covering materials and scaffolds. Therefore, ceramic biomaterials are widely used not only in the field of orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery but also in dentistry as for dental prostheses. Materials monitoring technologies allow us to monitor the three-dimensional development in space, as well as imperfections or micro-cracks in the ceramic.

Long-term effectiveness of UV functionalised short (≤ 6 mm) dental implants placed in the posterior segments of the atrophied maxilla: controlled case series

This study evaluated long-term effectiveness UV functionalised short implants (≤ 6 mm) placed in the posterior segments of the atrophied maxilla. The study included 47 patients from 2018 to 2023 (aged 27 to 56 years, 24 women and 23 men) without any systemic diseases, with unilateral/bilateral missing teeth and vertical atrophy of the posterior maxillary area. Total installed were 64 short UV-functionalized implants and 62 standard implants over 10 mm in length in segments maxilla with sufficient bone parameters. Clinical, laboratory and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) methods were used to plan implant therapy. The clinical indices included the following parameters: ISQ, MBL, OHIP-G scale. For short implants, the median ISQ at placement was 62.2 for primary stability and the median ISQ at 5 months was 69.6 ISQ. For standard implant, the mean ISQ at placement was 64.3 ISQ, and ISQ after 5 months was 71.6 ISQ. After 6 months mean MBL short implants 0.87 mm, after 1 year 1.13 mm, after 5 years was 1.48 mm. After 6 months mean MBL standard implants 0.84 mm, after 1 year 1.24 mm, after 5 years was 1.58 mm. Mean OHIP-G scores-patients satisfaction with the implant at 4.8 ± 0.3, satisfaction with the operation 4.6 ± 0.4; satisfaction with prosthetics 4.7 ± 0.5. Cumulative success rate 5 years short implants was 96.7%, standard implants was 97.4%, and prosthesis cumulative survival rate was 97.2%. Short ultraviolet functionalized implants used in the posterior resorbed segment of maxilla have been shown to be a reliable alternative to sinus lift, demonstrating fewer complications, reduction in the number of additional surgical interventions and showed satisfactory long-term survival.

Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10-mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading

AIM

To systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Forty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates for ≤6-mm and ≥10-mm implants in non-augmented bone and full-mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6-mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5-year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4-mm and 5-mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short- and long-term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5-year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10-mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full-arch rehabilitation, and 6-mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

Influence of crestal and sub-crestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases: a 5-year retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of crestal and subcrestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were allocated in two groups: with the shoulder (i) placed in sub-crestal level and (ii) placed at bone level. For each patient, the following clinical variables were assessed: FMPS, FMBS, PlI, BOP, and PD. After prothesis delivery, an intraoral radiograph was obtained; this exam was performed also at 5 years of observation period.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in terms of FMPS and FMBS at baseline and after 5 years follow-up (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference was assessed between PD of control group and test group (P = 0.042). Patient-based analysis showed a 25.6% of peri-implant mucositis and 32.6% of peri-implantitis for implants placed with the shoulder in crestal position, while for implants inserted in sub-crestal position the percentage of peri-implant-mucositis and peri-implantitis were 19%; no statistically significant difference was found between groups after 5 years (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of the present study, the clinical and radiographic outcomes showed that the percentage of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was not statistically significant for both groups after 5 years follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The outcomes of present study clinically demonstrated that a deep position of implant shoulder did not provide any benefits. On the contrary, it may be considered a possible risk indicator for implant diseases.

Clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation, in comparison with lateral approach, in sites with residual bone height ≤6 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This paper addressed two focused questions: Focused question 1 (Q1) "what is the clinical efficacy of transcrestal sinus floor augmentation (TSFA), as compared to lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) in sites with residual bone height (RBH) ≤6 mm, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?"; Focused question 2 (Q2) "what is the estimated effectiveness of TSFA for outcomes in Q1, in RCTs, CCTs or cohort studies?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and hand search were conducted from January 1986 until December 2022. All eligible clinical studies expressly reporting TSFA in sites with RBH ≤6 mm were included. The data were extracted, and the risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included for Q1 and 25 studies (9 RCTs, 2 CCTs, 14 single arm cohort studies) for Q2. Q1: Meta-analysis did not show significant difference in the implant survival, sinus membrane perforation and marginal bone loss between TSFA and LSFA groups. Q2: Meta-analysis showed TSFA had a high implant survival rate (96.5%, 95% CI: 93.2%-98.9%) at least 1 year after surgery, and limited sinus membrane perforation (5.4%, 95% CI: 2.7%-8.8%). The results also presented higher patient satisfaction for TSFA.

CONCLUSION

With the limitations of the present study (high risk of bias in individual studies), it can be concluded that there was no significant difference in implant survival, Schneiderian membrane perforation and MBL between two approaches in sites with RBH ≤6 mm.

One-stage versus two-stage technique using two splinted extra-short implants: A multicentric split-mouth study with a one-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of extra-short implants (≤6.5 mm) inserted with one-stage versus two-stage technique in adjacent sites of the upper or lower jaw.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this split-mouth multicenter study, implants were randomly divided into two groups according to the healing phase: two-stage and one-stage technique. Primary outcome measures were implant survival, implant success, and prosthodontic complications. Secondary outcome measurements were: implant stability quotient (ISQ) collected at surgery time (T0), and after 3 (T3) and 12 (T12) months, marginal bone level (MBL) evaluated at T0, T3, T6, and T12, marginal bone loss evaluated at T6 and T12, plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at T3, T6, and T12. Significances of differences between groups were tested by linear mixed model with random intercept.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (8 males and 11 females) were included. A total of 38 implants were inserted. At T12 implant cumulative survival and implant success rate were 100% in both groups. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any of the analyzed parameters between the two groups at any time point. ISQ values were similar at T0 (two-stage: mean 67.53 ± SD 19.47; one-stage: mean 66.53 ± 19.07 p = 0.8738) and increased in both groups at the 12-month follow-up appointment (two-stage: 81.1 ± 7.04; one-stage: 81.39 ± 0.9266). MBL values were similar in the two groups at any time point. At T12 marginal bone loss was 0.46 ± 0.41 (two-stage) and 0.45 ± 0.38 (one-stage) mm (p = 0.9417), while mean PD was 2.7 ± 0.85 (two-stage) and 2.69 ± 0.89 (one-stage) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present short-term report, extra-short implants demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes using the one-stage technique, without statistically significant differences compared with the traditional two-stage approach.

Intraoperative complications and early implant failure after transcrestal sinus floor elevation with residual bone height ≤5 mm: A retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Clinical indications for maxillary sinus floor elevation with transcrestal techniques have increased in recent years even in sites with minimal residual bone height (RBH). Nevertheless, limited information is currently available on incidence of intraoperative complications and early implant failure in these cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study was performed on anonymized clinical and radiographic records of patients who underwent transcrestal sinus floor elevation in seven clinical centers. Influence of different factors related to patient, and sinus anatomy and surgical technique on the incidence of intraoperative complications and early implant failure rate after transcrestal sinus lift were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients treated with transcrestal sinus floor elevation for single-implant insertion in sites with RBH ≤5 mm were included in the final analysis. After 1 year of loading, 418 implants of 430 were satisfactorily in function. Early implant failure was recorded in 12 cases (2.8%); results were significantly associated with the presence of large sinus cavities and with the occurrence of membrane perforation. The following adverse events were recorded: membrane perforation (7.2%), acute sinusitis (0.9%), implant displacement into the sinus cavity (0.7%), oro-antral fistula (0.2%), and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (0.5% of osteotome cases). A strong direct correlation between sinus membrane perforation and bucco-palatal sinus width (p = .000) was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Early implant failure after transcrestal sinus elevation showed significant direct correlation with bucco-palatal maxillary sinus width and the presence of membrane perforation. Sinus membrane perforation was strongly associated with bucco-palatal sinus width (extremely low perforation rate in narrow and much higher incidence in wide sinuses).

Radiographic and Histomorphologic Evaluation of the Maxillary Bone after Crestal Mini Sinus Lift Using Absorbable Collagen—Retrospective Evaluation

Background: After tooth extraction, the alveolar bone loses volume in height and width over time, meaning that reconstructive procedures may be necessary to perform implant placement. In the maxilla, to increase the bone volume, a mini-invasive surgery, such as a sinus lift using the crestal approach, could be performed. Methods: A crestal approach was used in this study to perform the sinus lift, fracturing the bone and inserting collagen (Condress^®). The single dental implant was placed in the healed bone after six months. Results: The newly formed bone was histologically analyzed after healing. Histomorphological analyses confirmed the quality of the new bone formation even without graft biomaterials. This is probably due to the enlargement of the space, meaning more vascularization and stabilization of the coagulum. Conclusion: Using just collagen could be sufficient to induce proper new bone formation in particular clinical situations, with a minimally invasive surgery to perform a sinus lift.

Short Narrow Dental Implants versus Long Narrow Dental Implants in Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Clinical Study

There is a paucity of studies that assess short and narrow dental implants. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of both short (≤8 mm) and narrow (≤3.5 mm width) dental implants supporting fixed prostheses in the atrophic maxilla or mandible. Towards that aim, patients with short implants were included in the study. The control group was those with long and narrow dental implants (length > 8 mm and diameter ≤ 3.5 mm). Clinical and demographic variables were extracted from clinical records. During the follow-up, implant survival and marginal bone loss were evaluated and statistically analysed. Forty-one implants were included (18 and 23 implants in the test and control groups, respectively). The median follow-up time was 26 months since insertion in both groups. The results revealed that there was no implant failure and no statistically significant differences in terms of marginal bone loss. Only one screw-loosening effect occurred in the short implants group. Short, narrow dental implants could be an alternative for the restoration of severely resorbed jaws.

Implant survival after graftless sinus floor augmentation in highly atrophic maxillae: a randomized controlled trial in a split mouth study

PURPOSE

The success rate of dental implants after graftless sinus augmentation versus conventional sinus augmentation surgery in atrophic maxillae in edentulous patients was investigated.

METHODS

This randomized study was performed in ten edentulous patients with marked maxillary atrophy. On the graftless side, the sinus membrane was lifted by a resorbable membrane. The control side was augmented with a mixture of autografts and xenografts. Implant placement followed 6 months postoperatively. Outcomes were implant survival, success of prosthetic rehabilitation and stability of vertical bone gain.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included. Postoperative radiology showed sufficient bone gain on both maxillary sides. Follow-up varied from 57 to 88 months. The conventional side showed significant (p = 0.041) more bone gain than the experimental side (respectively, 9.69 mm and 6.20 mm). A total of 59 implants were placed: 30 after conventional, 29 after graftless augmentation. One implant was lost on the conventional side and four on the experimental side. The implant survival was significantly higher on the conventional side (96.7% vs. 86.2%, p < 0.001, RR = 4.14). Prosthetic restoration was functionally successful in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Bone gain and implant survival were significantly lower in the non-grafted side versus the grafted side. Prosthetic rehabilitation was possible in all ten patients. The non-grafted technique may have some potential for clinical use, although it showed poorer results. Trial registration The Netherlands Trialregister. NTR NL3541 (NTR3696). Registered 20 January 2013, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/3541 .

Clinical performance of short versus standard dental implants in vertically augmented bone: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question: What do we know so far about the clinical performance of short implants (≤ 7 mm) when compared to standard length implants in vertically augmented bone, as well as which is the overall confidence of the systematic reviews (SRs) about this topic?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An overview of SRs was conducted. The searches were performed in six electronic databases and grey literature. SRs about short (≤ 7 mm) versus standard dental implants performance in vertically augmented bone were included. The assessed outcomes were marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival (IS), prosthetic (PC) and biological complications (BC), costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the overall confidence of included SRs.

RESULTS

Thirteen SRs were included. Nine of twelve SRs reported a lower MBL for the short implant group. All the included SRs showed no difference in the IS between groups. A higher rate of BC was reported for standard-length implants in four out of five SRs. No differences regarding PC were reported in four of five SRs. Information related to patient preference, cost, and surgery time were underreported. The confidence evaluation of the SRs was stratified as low for five SRs and critically low for eight SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

In an overall low-to-very low confidence levels, short implants appear to perform better in the mid-term (up to 5 years) than standard dental implants associated with vertical bone augmentation regarding MBL and BC, but they have a similar performance regarding IS rates and PC. There is an imperative need to improve the methodological quality of SRs, and efforts should focus on conducting RCTs to broaden the knowledge on this topic.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Short implants could represent a viable, simpler, and less invasive treatment when available bone height is limited.

Short vs. regular length implants to rehabilitate partially edentulous mandible: a 2-year prospective split-mouth clinical study

Many studies have evaluated short implants (SIs); however, it is still unclear whether SIs are reliable and can be used to simplify surgical and prosthetic protocols with successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this non-random, conveniently sampled, prospective, split-mouth study was to compare the clinical outcomes when short (SI) (≤8 mm) or regular-length implants (RIs) (>10 mm) were used in the posterior mandible two years after the delivery of splinted reconstructions. Each participant (N=10) received four implants in the posterior mandible; two SIs were placed on one side, and two RIs were placed contra-laterally. Implants were restored with splinted, screw-retained, porcelain-fused-to-metal reconstructions. Survival and success rates, peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL), and soft tissue parameters were evaluated. No participant drop-outs were recorded. Both types of implants showed 100% success and survival rates. From prosthetic delivery to 24 months post-loading, bone remineralization of +0.40 mm for the SIs and +0.36 mm for the RIs was observed without statistically significant differences in MBL between the implant types (p=0.993). SIs showed significantly higher (p=0.001) clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing depth (PD) values. Chipping occurred in one situation in the RI group resulting in a 97.5% prosthetic success rate, which was 100% for the SIs. After 2 years, SIs with splinted reconstructions showed comparable clinical outcomes to those of RIs. Further long-term controlled clinical studies with balanced experimental designs evaluating random and larger populations are required to corroborate these findings.

A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

A Minimally Invasive Technique for Short Spiral Implant Insertion with Contextual Crestal Sinus Lifting in the Atrophic Maxilla: A Preliminary Report

The most recently reported techniques for the rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla are increasingly less invasive, as they are generally oriented to avoid sinus floor elevation with lateral access. The authors describe a mini-invasive surgical technique for short spiral implant insertion for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla, which could be considered a combination of several previously described techniques based on the under-preparation of the implant site to improve fixture primary stability and crestal approach to the sinus floor elevation without heterologous bone graft. Eighty short spiral implants were inserted in the molar area of the maxilla in patients with 4.5–6 mm of alveolar bone, measured on pre-operative computed tomography. The surgical technique involved careful drilling for the preparation of implant sites at differentiated depths, allowing bone dislocation in the apical direction, traumatic crestal sinus membrane elevation, and insertion of an implant (with spiral morphology) longer than pre-operative measurements. Prostheses were all single crowns. In all cases, a spiral implant 2–4 mm longer than the residual bone was placed. Only two implants were lost due to peri-implantitis but subsequently replaced and followed-up. Bone loss values around the implants after three months (at the re-opening) ranged from 0 to 0.6 mm, (median value: 0.1 mm), while after two years, the same values ranged from 0.4 to 1.3 mm (median value: 0.7 mm). Clinical post-operative complications did not occur. After ten years, no implant has been lost. Overall, the described protocol seems to show good results in terms of predictability and patient compliance.

An Anatomic Study on the Maxillary Sinus Mucosal Thickness and the Distance between the Maxillary Sinus Ostium and Sinus Floor for the Maxillary Sinus Augmentation

Background and objectives: The average rate of chronic sinusitis after maxillary implantation was approximately 5.1%. However, the evidence of predictive risk factors for sinusitis after implantation is lacking. The aim of this study was to perform an anatomic study on the maxillary sinus mucosal thickness (MSMT), the distance between the maxillary sinus ostium and sinus floor (MOD), and the MSMT/MOD ratio as a preoperative risk indicator for sinusitis after maxillary dental implantation. Materials and Methods: Between October 2008 and October 2019, all patients referred to the otolaryngology department were included in this study. A total of 120 patients were enrolled. The 95 patients who received no treatment prior to implantation were classified into Group A, the 16 patients who used antibiotics before implantation were classified into Group B, and the patients who had implants inserted after functional endoscopic sinus surgery were classified into Group C. The MSMT, MOD, MSMT/MOD ratio, anatomical factors associated with ostial obstruction, and the occurrence of postoperative sinusitis were reviewed. Results: There were significant group differences in MSMT (Group A vs. Group B, p = 0.001; Group B vs. Group C, p = 0.003; Group C vs. Group A, p < 0.0001). The MOD showed no significant difference among the three groups. The MSMT/MOD ratio showed significant differences between Groups A and B (p = 0.001), B and C (p < 0.0001), and C and A (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: It is important to check not only the proportion of the maxillary sinus occupying lesion, but also the status of the maxillary sinus osteomeatal complex when making therapeutic decisions. In addition, collaboration between dentists and otolaryngologists could improve outcomes in patients with maxillary sinus lesions.