Prevalence, risk factors, and repair mechanism of different forms of sinus membrane perforations in lateral window sinus lift procedure: A retrospective cohort study

Clinical, radiographic, and histological/histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus grafting with deproteinized porcine or bovine bone mineral: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to compare histomorphometrically evaluated new bone formation, radiographically measured graft stability, and clinical implant outcome between maxillary sinus grafting with either deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty maxillary sinuses were initially included and randomly assigned to the test group (TG; DPBM, n = 15) or control group (CG; DBBM, n = 15). After a healing period (6 months), axially retrieved bone biopsies of the molar region were used for histological/histomorphometric analysis of new bone formations. Additionally, radiographically measured graft stability and clinical implant outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three sinus sites with 10 sinuses of the TG and 13 of the CG were ultimately available for data and statistical analysis. In the TG, a slightly, but yet significantly (p = .040) higher proportion of new bone formation (TG: 27.7 ± 5.6% vs. CG: 22.9 ± 5.1%) and a lesser (p = .019) amount of connective (non-mineralized) tissue (TG: 47.5 ± 9.5% vs. CG: 56.1 ± 9.5%) was found than in the CG. However, both xenografts showed comparable (n.s.) residual bone graft (TG: 23.7 ± 7.2% vs. CG: 21.1 ± 9.85.6%), bone-to-graft contacts (TG: 26.2 ± 9.8% vs. CG: 30.8 ± 13.8%), similar graft height reduction over time (TG: 12.9 ± 6.7% CG: 12.4 ± 5.8%) and implant survival/success rate (100%). At the 3-year post-loading evaluation, the peri-implant marginal bone loss (TG: 0.52 ± 0.19 mm; CG: 0.48 ± 0.15 mm) and the peri-implant health conditions (TG: 87.5%/CG: 81.2%) did not differ between implants inserted in both xenografts used.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DPBM or DBBM for maxillary sinus augmentation is associated with comparable bone formation providing stable graft dimension combined with healthy peri-implant conditions.

Transsinusoidal lateral nasal floor augmentation for implant placement in the atrophic premaxilla: A within-patient, 5-year, prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical outcome for implants placed with transsinusoidal-lateral nasal cavity augmentation (NA) compared to implants placed in maxillary sinus augmentation (SA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 28 atrophic edentulous maxillary regions (14 patients bi-maxillary), a lateral window approach was used to perform transsinusoidal-lateral NA (TSLNA) combined with maxillary SA. After healing period of about 6 months, each patient received bimaxillary one anterior implant located in the pre-maxilla having lateral NA and 2-3 implants in the maxillary posterior region with SA. In a prospective follow-up evaluation, clinical implant outcome (survival/success rates) and peri-implant health (mucositis/peri-implantitis) were assessed and compared between implants placed in TSLNA (n = 28) and SA (n = 58).

RESULTS

At the year-1, year-3, and year-5 evaluation, neither patient-based nor implant-based comparisons revealed differences for marginal bone level reduction between implants placed in TSLNA (5-year overall: 1.11 ± 0.26 mm) and SA (5-year overall: 1.07 ± 0.30 mm), although with a significant (p < .001) continuous reduction over the observation time. At the year-5 evaluation, all implants (n = 86) and restorations (n = 14) were still in situ (survival 100%) and showed an implant-based incidence of peri-implant mucositis/peri-implantitis of 14.3%/0% in TSLNA and 6.9%/3.4% in SA corresponding to 21.4%/0% and 28.6%/7.1% for implant-based evaluation. In addition, the implant success rate did not differ between NA and SA at implant- (100%/ 98.8%) and patient-based (100%/97.6%) evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The findings obtained show TSLNA as an effective method for implant placement of adequate length and direction in the atrophic premaxilla providing for success rates comparable to those of implants placed in SA.

Association between smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation during maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation in sinus floor augmentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted by two authors independently. The inclusion criteria were the (1) age of patients >18, (2) the number of participants >10, and (3) smoking and the patients of Schneiderian membrane perforation were accurately recorded. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Statistics analyses were conducted using Reman5.4.1 and Stata (15.0). The association of Schneiderian membrane perforation with smoking habits during maxillary sinus floor elevation was expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CIs). And the I2 statistic was used to estimate statistical heterogeneity. The funnel plot and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the reliability and stability of the results.

RESULTS

Of 1463 articles screened, nine studies were included in our systematic review, and eight were synthesized for meta-analysis. Eight were retrospective observational studies and one was a clinical trial, with a total of 1424 patients included. The nine studies were proved as high quality according to the NOS. There was no significant publication bias in the studies (p = 0.827). A random-effects model was used because of differences in the adopted methodologies (p = 0.39, I2  = 5%). During maxillary sinus augmentation, smoking and Schneiderian membrane perforation were associated (odds ratios, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.10-2.25]).

CONCLUSION

Smoking increased the risk of membrane perforation in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Our evaluation was limited by the poor reporting of the number of cigarettes smoked per day (PROSPERO number was CRD42022306570).

Application of an assembled surgical guide for lateral approach sinus augmentation and sinus septum management: A technical note

The presence of maxillary septa may render sinus augmentation more challenging particularly when encountered at the ideal implant position. This article demonstrated a novel technique for lateral access sinus augmentation using an assembled surgical guide to achieve proper lateral window outline, precise septum identification and osteotomy, and secure membrane detachment. This technique increases the predictability and efficiency of the procedure while reducing the risk of complications.

Sinus augmentation procedure via the lateral window technique-Reducing invasiveness and preventing complications: A narrative review

Sinus augmentation has become an integrated surgical phase in posterior maxillary implant prosthesis reconstruction. Since the residual alveolar bony height usually requires additional volume particularly at this anatomical region, sinus floor augmentation is advocated routinely. Over the years, Implant success rate is proved to be comparable to the one in the pristine bone, which is well documented in the literature. Anatomical aspects as well as surgeon skills are at most importance to achieve predictable outcome. In this narrative review, the different osteotomy techniques, the indications toward 1 or 2-stage approaches, the control of the Schneiderian membrane integrity as well as the management of intra- and post-operative complications are thoroughly discussed according the current data. In light of the excellent long-term implant success rate concurrent with the application of contemporary advanced techniques of the sinus augmentation via the lateral wall osteotomy approach, reduce invasiveness and less complication occurrences are well documented. A well-codified patient selection involving the rhinologist as an integral medical team would be significantly beneficial toward early diagnosis. In-depth knowledge of the anatomy, execution of a well standardized surgical technique, and understanding the complication etiology and their management are prerequisites for reducing patient morbidity to minimal discomfort and predictable successful outcome.

The influence of different forms of sinus membrane perforation on the prevalence of postoperative complications in lateral window sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Maxillary sinus membrane perforation (SMP) during lateral window sinus floor elevation (SFE) might be associated with postoperative complications (PC).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of PC and clinical implant outcome for different forms of SMP with lateral window SFE.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The prevalence of PC such as maxillary sinusitis, graft necrosis and wound infection was retrospectively evaluated for 434 lateral window SFE (334 patients) with 331 SFE (241 patients) without and 103 SFE (93 patients) with SMP. SMP was additionally classified into four subgroups regarding to membrane perforation size (small-moderate [<10 mm] vs. large [>10 mm]) and membrane biotype ([BT] thin vs. thick). Additionally, patient- and surgery-related risk factors affecting PC and the 1-year implant survival rate were evaluated for SFE without and with SMP and subgroups.

RESULTS

A significantly higher prevalence including significant odds ratios of PC such as maxillary sinusitis (10/103 [9.7%] vs. 4/331 [1.2%]; p < 0.021; OR: 8.85; p < 0.021) and graft necrosis (7/103[6.8%] vs. 1/103[0.3%]; p < 0.017; OR:7.43; p < 0.017) was found for SFE with than without SMP. The SMP subgroup with large size and thin BT involved significantly (p < 0.005) more PC (15/20[75%]) than all other SMP subgroups (5/20[25%]). For the risk factors evaluated the univariate analysis demonstrated differences of PC for the presence versus absence of SMP (p < 0.001) and for thin versus thick sinus mucosa (p < 0.038; p < 0.006) but not for sex, smoking, sinus septa and surgical stage. In the multivariate risk factors analysis, PC were significantly related to risk factors such as large size with thin BT (OR:18.049; p < 0.007). The 1-year implant survival rate did not differ between SFE without (99.5%) and with SMP (99.1%), regardless of successfully repaired subtype of SMP.

CONCLUSION

The synopsis of perforation size and membrane biotype is crucial in differentiating different forms of SMP assessing and anticipating different prevalences of PC in lateral window SFE.