Transalveolar sinus floor elevation using osteotomes without grafting in severely atrophic maxilla: a 5-year prospective study

Rehabilitation of distal extension maxillary ridges with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: Preliminary 12-month randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This trial evaluated clinical outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses for rehabilitation of atrophied distal extension maxillary ridges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 54 participants with atrophied distal extension maxillary ridges were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 18/group). Group I (SLF); participants treated with fixed restoration supported by three long implants after sinus augmentation, Group II (SF); participants treated with fixed restoration supported by one long and two short implants, and Group III (OD): participants treated with removable partial denture assisted by one long implant that was placed mesial to maxillary sinus (IARPD). Modified plaque index (MPI), modified gingival index (MGI), pocket depth (PD), implant stability (IS), and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured after prosthesis insertion (T0), 6 (T6), and 12 months (T12) after insertion. Patient satisfaction was measured at T12 using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The implant survival rates were 96.8%, 92.4%, and 84.6% for SLF, SF, and OD groups respectively. The SLF recorded the highest MPI, MGI, PD, and IS values, followed by the SF, and the OD showed the lowest values. The OD recorded the highest CBL followed by the SF and the SLF showed the lowest CBL. With exception of satisfaction with surgery and cleaning, SLF and SF groups recorded significantly higher patient satisfaction than the OD for all VAS questions.

CONCLUSION

Fixed restorations supported with either long or short implants were associated with improved implant stability, reduced bone loss, and increased patient satisfaction compared to implant-assisted RPDs. However, implant-assisted RPDs were associated with more favorable peri-implant soft tissue health and increased satisfaction with surgery, healing, and cleaning.

A New Simplified Autogenous Sinus Lift Technique

Oral maxillofacial rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla with or without pneumatization of the maxillary sinuses routinely presents limited bone availability. This indicates the need for vertical and horizontal bone augmentation. The standard and most used technique is maxillary sinus augmentation using distinct techniques. These techniques may or may not rupture the sinus membrane. Rupture of the sinus membrane increases the risk of acute or chronic contamination of the graft, implant, and maxillary sinus. The surgical procedure for maxillary sinus autograft involves two stages: removal of the autograft and preparation of the bone site for the graft. A third stage is often added to place the osseointegrated implants. This is because it was not possible to do this at the same time as the graft surgery. A new bioactive kinetic screw (BKS) bone implant model is presented that simplifies and effectively performs autogenous grafting, sinus augmentation, and implant fixation in a single step. In the absence of a minimum vertical bone height of 4 mm in the region to be implanted, an additional surgical procedure is performed to harvest bone from the retro-molar trigone region of the mandible to provide additional bone. The feasibility and simplicity of the proposed technique were demonstrated in experimental studies in synthetic maxillary bone and sinus. A digital torque meter was used to measure MIT and MRT during implant insertion and removal. The amount of bone graft was determined by weighing the bone material collected by the new BKS implant. The technique proposed here demonstrated the benefits and limitations of the new BKS implant for maxillary sinus augmentation and installation of dental implants simultaneously.

Clinical Validation of Dental Implant Stability by Newly Designed Damping Capacity Assessment Device during the Healing Period

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the stability of a dental implant and the effectiveness of a newly designed damping capacity assessment device by improving the number of blows and strength evaluated by a prospective clinical study. Materials and Method: The stability of dental implants was measured in 50 implants in a total of 38 patients. Measurements were performed using Anycheck and Periotest M devices, twice in total, divided into buccal and lingual directions. In addition, measurements were performed on the day of surgery, two weeks, one month, two months, and three months after surgery for a total of five times. After the standardization of the measured values, the differences and changes over time for each device were observed. Result: No difference in standardized values between the two devices was observed at any time point. In both devices, stability decreased at two weeks postoperatively but gradually increased thereafter. No differences were observed in the values according to the measurement direction. Conclusions: The damping capacity of Anycheck was similar to that of Periotest M. After a slight decrease in stability two weeks after implant placement, implant stability increased over time.

Influence of anatomical factors related to maxillary sinus on outcomes of transcrestal sinus floor elevation

Background/purpose

Graft bone maturation and remodeling in the maxillary sinus require adequate angiogenesis and osteoprogenitor cells migration from the surrounding bony walls and Schneiderian membrane. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of anatomical factors related to maxillary sinus on the outcomes of transcrestal sinus floor elevation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

Forty-five patients (63 elevated sites) were included in this study. CBCT were obtained preoperatively, immediately and 6 months after surgery. The anatomical features of residual bone height, maxillary sinus width, maxillary sinus angle and Schneiderian membrane thickness were measured on preoperative CBCT. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted to evaluate the influence of anatomical factors on outcome parameters, including sinus lift height, graft bone resorption and marginal bone loss.

Results

The results showed that there was a positive correlation between sinus width and graft bone resorption. A significantly positive correlation between sinus angle and graft bone resorption was also found.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that the anatomical factors of maxillary sinus (sinus width and sinus angle) have influence on the linear change of bone grafts after transcrestal sinus floor elevation.

Survival rate of dental implant placed using various maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the survival rate of dental implant placed using different maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques.

Setting and Design

PRISMA guidelines were used for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods

Relevant articles were searched from Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane trials. Articles published in English language were selected. Hand search was further conducted. For risk of bias, two tools were used, i.e., Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and new castle Ottawa quality assessment tool for non-RCTs.

Statistical Analysis

For statistical meta-analysis RevMan 5.4 software was used.

Results

Seventeen studies were finalized. All studies were included in the meta-analysis to check the implant survival rate. There is no statistical difference between direct and indirect techniques, and forest plot was derived for direct approach (P = 0.688, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9691) and for indirect approach (P = 0.686 and 95% CI 0.970).

Conclusion

There is no statistically significant difference in the survival rate of implant placed using direct or indirect sinus lift approach procedures. Hence, the technique is selected as per the indications given for each direct and indirect procedure.

Displacement of the full body of a dental implant into the sinus space without membrane perforation and subsequent osseointegration: a case report

An increasing number of studies have investigated the use of osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with simultaneous implant placement for maxillary sinus floor residual bone height (RBH) <4 mm. Many studies have reported good clinical results, but very few have reported complications related to this procedure. Here, the case of a 50-year-old female patient with an RBH in the left upper posterior region of 1–4 mm, who underwent OSFE with simultaneous placement of three Bicon short® implants, is described. One of the implants was found to be displaced during the second-stage surgery. The displaced implant was removed using piezosurgery, OSFE with simultaneous implant placement was repeated, and the missing tooth was reconstructed 6 months later. This case suggests that OSFE with simultaneous implant placement is feasible for severely atrophic maxillary sinus floor, but carries a risk of implant displacement.

Outcomes of implants placed after osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of single-arm studies

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the implant survival/success rate, gain in alveolar bone height, crestal bone loss, and complications associated with implants placed in the posterior maxilla after osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone substitutes.

Methods

The electronic databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were systematically and manually searched for publications in peer-reviewed journals. The included articles were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses, and the meta-analysis was carried out for single-arm studies. Methodological quality assessment was made for all the included studies.

Results

The included studies were of moderate quality, with the overall implant success and survival rates of 98.3% and 97.9% respectively. The most frequent intra-surgical complication was sinus membrane perforation, accounting for 3.08% of the total implants with reported perforations. The overall crestal bone loss in patients with immediate implants placed with OSFE after a 5-year follow-up was 0.957 mm 95%CI (0.538, 1.377).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that the survival and success rates of implants placed immediately along with OSFE without any bone substitutes are acceptable and show adequate implant stability with less crestal bone loss over 5 years.

The survival rate of transcrestal sinus floor elevation combined with short implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background

Currently, insufficient bone volume always occurs in the posterior maxilla which makes implantation difficult. Short implants combined with transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) may be an option to address insufficient bone volume.

Purpose

The clinical performance of short implants combined with TSFE was compared with that of conventional implants combined with TSFE according to the survival rate.

Method

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and manual searching. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies. The quality assessment was performed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. The odds ratio (OR) with its confidence interval (CI) was considered the essential outcome for estimating the effect of short implants combined with TSFE.

Results

The registration number is INPLASY202050092. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 cohort study and 10 cross-sectional studies. With respect to the 1-year survival rate, no significant effect was observed between short implants (length ≤ 8 mm) and conventional implants combined with TSFE (I²=0%, OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.55-1.96). Similarly, no difference was seen between the two groups regarding the survival rate during the healing period (I²=10%, OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.28-1.97) and 3-year loading (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 0.65-4.74).

Conclusion

There was no evidence that the survival rate of short implants combined with TSFE was lower or higher than that of conventional implants combined with TSFE when the residual bone height was poor and the implant protrusion length of short implants was less than or similar to conventional implants. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of random controlled trials in our meta-analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00325-y.

Implant-supported rehabilitation following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: analysis of costs and quality of life from a bi-center, parallel-arm randomized trial

AIM

to comparatively evaluate costs and specific aspects of oral-health related quality of life (OhRQoL) related to the period between the surgery phase of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively) and 6 months after delivery of implant-supported prosthesis.

METHODS

A bi-center, parallel-arm, randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE when applied concomitantly with implant placement was conducted. At 6 months after prosthesis delivery, data on cost-associated items related to the post-surgery period and selected aspects of OhRQoL were collected.

RESULTS

Analyses of costs and quality of life was conducted on 56 patients (tSFE: 28; lSFE: 28) and 54 patients (tSFE: 26; lSFE: 28), respectively. Significantly lower dose of anesthetic (2 vs 3 vials), amount of xenograft (420 mg vs 1975 mg), and duration of surgery (54' vs 86') were observed for tSFE compared to lSFE. No significant differences in the number of additional surgical sessions, postoperative exams, specialist consultations and drug consumption were found between groups. In a limited fraction of patients in both groups, improvements were observed for pain (tSFE: 3.8%; lSFE: 7.4%), comfort in eating any food (tSFE: 11.5%; lSFE: 3.6%), self-consciousness (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 14.3%), and satisfaction about life (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 10.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgery phase of maxillary sinus floor elevation is characterized by more favorable cost-associated items for tSFE compared to lSFE. Differently, tSFE and lSFE do not differ for either costs related to the post-surgery phases or impact of the implant-supported rehabilitation on specific aspects of OhRQoL.

Clinical Outcome of Dental Implants after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with and without Bone Grafting: A Retrospective Evaluation

(1) Background: The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate and compare the outcome of two sinus augmentation grafting protocols using a xenograft or blood clot alone over a 72-month follow-up. (2) Methods: Patients who received simultaneous lateral sinus floor augmentation and implant placement were included. Subjects were divided into two groups according to the grafting material, namely xenograft or blood clot, and into sub-groups based on the residual alveolar bone height (RABH) below the maxillary sinus, namely 4 to 6 mm or >6 mm. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for each material group and for each sub-group at 1, 3, and 6 years. (3) Results: In total, 289 implants inserted in 136 patients with a one-stage procedure were considered. A total of 35 failures were registered. Overall survival rates were 94.2% for xenograft and 85.9% for blood clot alone at 1 year, 91.1% and 81.6% at 3 years, and 91.1% and 78.7% at 6 years. (4) Conclusions: In patients with 4-6 mm RABH, graftless interventions exploiting blood clot alone were not as successful as those using xenograft. When the RABH is low, sinus floor augmentation associated with grafting materials should be preferred whenever possible.

Sinus Floor Elevation via an Osteotome Technique without Biomaterials

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.

[Retrospective study on transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implantation of short implants]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the changes in bone height of the maxillary sinus floor at different sinus ridge heights after transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE) with the simultaneous implantation of short implants.

METHODS

A total of 74 Bicon short implants were implanted into 37 patients during the same period of maxillary sinus elevation. The residual bone height (RBH)<4 mm group has 43 sites, and the RBH≥4 mm group has 31 sites. After 5 years of follow-up observation, the implant survival rate and the change in bone height achieved in the maxillary sinus over time were measured and analyzed via clinical examination and X-ray imaging.

RESULTS

In the 74 implantation sites, the elevation height of the sinus floor was (6.64±1.32) mm and the bone height of the sinus floor was (3.35±1.29) mm 5 years after loading. No statistical difference was observed in the bone resorption of the implant neck between the RBH<4 mm and RBH≥4 mm groups. Meanwhile, a statistical difference was noted in the bone height obtained in the maxillary sinus between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When RBH in the maxillary posterior tooth area was <4 mm, the simultaneous implantation of Bicon short implants with tSFE can achieve a high implant survival rate and bone gain in the maxillary sinus, but does not increase the absorption of the alveolar ridge bone.

Long-term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting in severely atrophic maxilla: A 10-year prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to report 10-year results of osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) without grafting severely atrophic maxilla (residual bone height ≤4 mm).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing OSFE without grafting and implant placement were included for 10-year examinations. Implant survival, complication-free survival, modified bleeding index (mBI), modified plaque index (mPI), pocket probing depth (PPD), peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) and mean cost of recurrence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 patients with 35 implants attended 10-year examination. Cemented implant crowns or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were delivered to the patients. Kaplan-Meier implant survival was 89.2% at implant level and 84.1% at patient level. Complication-free survival was 26.0% at patient level and 37.0% at implant level. The average complication-free survival time was 74.6 months (95% CI: 63.2-86.0 months) at implant level and 69.1 months (95% CI: 54.8-83.4 months) at patient level. The mBI, mPI, PPD, MBL and ESBG at 10-year follow-up were 0.91 ± 0.58, 0.48 ± 0.51, 2.94 ± 0.79 mm, 1.63 ± 0.83 mm and 2.72 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. The cost of managing recurrence was 43.6% of the initial cost of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study indicate that OSFE without grafting is a reliable treatment option in severely atrophic maxilla. Acceptable survival rate, stable MBL and ESBG could be achieved within 10 years. Low complication-free survival and high costs of recurrence management need to be considered.

Long-term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To assess the long-term clinical and radiographic results of implants placed using osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with or without bone grafting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 (OSFE with deproteinized bovine bone mineral) and Group 2 (OSFE without grafting). The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after surgery. The implant survival, endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant bone height (PBH, distance from the most coronal level to the most apical level of bone-to-implant contact), prosthesis survival and hardware complications, and peri-implant soft tissue conditions were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty patients attended the 10-year examination. Mean residual bone height was 4.58 ± 1.28 mm. The 10-year cumulative survival rate was 90.7% for Group 1 and 95.0% for Group 2. The PBH was 5.89 ± 1.24 mm for Group 1 and 5.74 ± 1.43 mm for Group 2 at 10 years. The ESBG of both groups remained stable after 3 years. Two-thirds of the implants were free of hardware complications. No significant differences in MBL and peri-implant tissue parameters were found.

CONCLUSION

OSFE with or without grafting both yielded predictable clinical outcomes with similar PBH (ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01619956).

Therapeutic outcomes of non-grafted and platelet concentrations-grafted transcrestal maxillary sinus elevation (TSFE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate and compare the stability, quantity and quality of bone augmentation at maxillary sinus elevation sites by non-grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and platelet concentration grafted transcrestal sinus floor elevation (PC-TSFE). A complete literature search was performed up to April 2019. Clinical controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, and prospective cohort studies were selected based on inclusion criteria. The clinical outcomes were implant survival rate (ISR), marginal/crestal bone loss (MBL/CBL) and endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG). Meta‐analysis was conducted on these 1-year based values. Furthermore, another meta-analysis on 1-year ISR value was conducted among studies with different residual bone heights (RBH) within the non-grafted TSFE group. A total of 18 studies were included: 13 in TSFE group and 5 in PC-TSFE group. No significant differences were displayed between the 1-year ISR of TSFE (97%, 95%CI = 0.96–0.99) and PC-TSFE group (99%, 95%CI = 0.97–1.00). Among the various studies with different RBH within TSFE group, no significant differences in 1-year ISR were displayed. The 1-year MBL/CBL value of PC-TSFE group (0.73 mm, 95%CI = 0.43–1.13 mm) did not show significant difference as compared to TSFE group (0.60 mm, 95%CI = 0.10–1.10 mm). Furthermore, no significant enhancement was observed on 1-year ESBG value on PC-TSFE group (3.51 mm, 95%CI = 2.31–4.71 mm) in comparison with the TSFE group (2.87 mm, 95%CI = 2.18m–3.55 mm). Grafting platelet concentrations around dental implants at TSFE sites did not significantly enhance the adjacent bone regeneration. Moreover, TSFE was shown to be a reliable therapeutic option for implant sites that need simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation, even under limited RBH.

Indirect Sinus Augmentation With and Without the Addition of a Biomaterial: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the results of indirect sinus augmentation with and without the addition of a biomaterial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients aged 40 to 60 years participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. After closed sinus lift operation, patients were randomly and equally divided into blood clot control and acemannan sponge graft groups. Simultaneous implant placement was then performed. Cone beam computed tomography was performed immediately and at 3 and 6 months postoperation. Bone formation was evaluated by the radiographic endo-sinus bone gain percentage around the implant.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the acemannan-treated group had a significantly greater radiographic endo-sinus bone gain percentage of approximately 2.4- and 2-fold at 3 and 6 months postsurgery, respectively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a biomaterial (Acemannan) with indirect sinus augmentation and simultaneous implant placement significantly enhances bone formation at 3 and 6 months postsurgery.

Clinical evaluation of modified transalveolar sinus floor elevation and osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Implant placement in the posterior maxilla is often complicated by the insufficient bone volume. While transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) has been proven as a predictable surgical procedure to increase the bone height in the posterior maxilla, questions in regard to the necessity of the bone grafting during the sinus lift and the question of whether TSFE could be performed when the residual bone height is below 5 mm are still debated. Furthermore, high-quality evidence comparing the clinical outcome of transalveolar sinus floor elevation with osteotome and modified sinus floor elevation with crestal non-cutting drills is limited.

METHODS/DESIGN

One hundred twenty adult patients who fit the inclusion criteria are being recruited from the Peking University Hospital of Stomatology First Clinical Division (Beijing, China). All patients are assigned to one of four groups according to a table of random numbers. Participants will receive (1) TSFE using osteotomes with bone grafting, (2) TSFE using osteotomes without bone grafting, (3) modified TSFE with bone grafting, or (4) modified TSFE without bone grafting. In a one-year follow-up period, implant survival rates, complications, implant stability, bone remodeling around the implant, and patient-reported outcome (visual analog scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be observed and documented. The implant stability will be gauged by the resonance frequency analysis six times (at baseline and weeks 6, 8, 12, 16, and 26), and the bone remodeling will be observed and compared via radiographic examinations.

DISCUSSION

The result of the trial will potentially contribute to better decision making in atrophic posterior maxilla when implant placement is needed. Therefore, if the outcome is deemed favorable, the use of the modified TSFE would achieve an outcome equivalent to that of the traditional TSFE while introducing less trauma and postoperative discomforts. Separately, whether the bone graft procedure is necessary for the TSFE will also be discussed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier number NCT03445039 . Registered on 26 February 2018.

Endo-sinus bone formation after transalveolar sinus floor elevation without grafting with simultaneous implant placement: Histological and histomorphometric assessment in a dog model

AIM

To evaluate endo-sinus new bone formation and implant osseointegration after transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) and simultaneous implant placement without any grafting materials and to investigate the influence of implant surface modification on bone healing process under this circumstance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Transalveolar sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implant placement were conducted bilaterally on 12 Labrador dogs. No grafting materials were used during surgery. Implants with two different surfaces (SLA and SLActive) were placed in a split-mouth design. The animals were sacrificed 4, 8 and 24 weeks after surgery for histological and histomorphometric assessments. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC%), alveolar bone height (ABH) and the percentages of mineralized bone (MB%) in the area of interest were analysed. The probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also assessed to describe peri-implant health conditions.

RESULTS

Sprouts of new bone in direct contact with implant surface were seen in the elevated area at every time point. Newly formed woven bone under sinus membrane was visible. SLActive implants exhibited favourable results compared with SLA implants regarding ABH at 4 weeks and BIC% at 4 and 8 weeks. Sites with BOP positive could be observed in both groups at any time point. No newly formed bone can be found on the implant apex with either SLA or SLActive surfaces at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous new bone formation from the parent bone walls could be observed after TFE without any grafting materials. No clear evidence of bone formation from the Schneiderian membrane could be found. Even though there were trends for quicker bone response of SLActive implants, this study failed to show the absolute advantage of SLActive in achieving endo-sinus bone formation.

Transalveolar sinus floor lift without bone grafting in atrophic maxilla: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical results after transalveolar sinus floor lift without bone grafting in the atrophic maxilla. A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library, followed by a manual search. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and conducted quality assessments. Ten non-controlled studies including 1484 implants and eight controlled studies (5 RCTs and 3 prospective studies) including 817 implants (451 implants in the non-graft group) were enrolled in this study. The survival rate of implants via the graft-free method was 98% (95%CI 96% to 100%). There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the non-graft group and the graft group (RR: 1.02; p = 0.18). No statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss was detected between the groups at 12 months (0.57, p = 0.07) or 36 months (0.05, p = 0.61). The endo-sinus bone gain in the non-graft group was significantly lower than in the graft group at 12 months (−1.10, p = 0.0001) and 36 months (−0.74, p = 0.02). Hence, the available evidence suggests that predictable results could be acquired through transalveolar sinus floor lift without bone grafting, while there may be a trend toward more endo-sinus bone gain with bone grafts.

Graft-Free Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate survival rates of dental implants placed simultaneously with graft-free maxillary sinus floor elevation (GFSFE). Factors influencing amount of vertical bone gain (VBG), protruded implant length (PIL) in sinus at follow-up (PILf), and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) are also evaluated.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches for human clinical studies on simultaneous implant placement and GFSFE using the lateral window or transcrestal approach, published in the English language from January 1976 to March 2016, were conducted. The random-effects model and mixed-effect meta-regression were used to analyze weighted mean values of clinical parameters and evaluate factors that influenced amount of VBG.

RESULTS

Of 740 studies, 22 clinical studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 864 implants were placed simultaneously with GFSFE at edentulous sites having mean residual bone height of 5.7 ± 1.7 mm. Mean implant survival rate (ISR) was 97.9% ± 0.02% (range: 93.5% to 100%). Weighted mean MBL was 0.91 ± 0.11 mm, and it was significantly associated with the postoperative follow-up period (r = 0.02; R2 = 43.75%). Weighted mean VBG was 3.8 ± 0.34 mm, and this parameter was affected significantly by surgical approach, implant length, and PIL immediately after surgery (PILi) (r = 2.82, 0.57, 0.80; R2 = 19.10%, 39.27%, 83.92%, respectively). Weighted mean PILf was 1.26 ± 0.33 mm (range: 0.3 to 2.1 mm).

CONCLUSION

Within limitations of the present systematic review, GFSFE with simultaneous implant placement can achieve satisfactory mean ISR of 97.9% ± 0.02%.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Implants in Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation with and without Grafting: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically appraise the clinical and radiological outcomes after osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with or without grafting in the published dental literature.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial to identify studies after OSFE from January 1, 1994 to August 30, 2015. The primary outcome was the implant survival rates after OSFE with and without grafting materials.

RESULTS

After search and evaluation of the literature according to the inclusion criteria, 7 studies were included in the review. The random-effect model meta-analysis based on 463 implants in patients without grafting and 415 implants in patients with grafting showed that the risk ratio difference of survival rates was 1.010 (95%CI 0.910, 1.120), which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.99). The membrane perforation rates ranged from 0% to 10.80%. No significant difference of crestal bone loss was reported between graft and nongraft groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available evidence, OSFE techniques with and without grafting were both predictable in the short term. In addition, survival rates of dental implants in OSFE with or without grafting did not show any significant difference in the short term.

Clinical evaluation of short 6-mm implants alone, short 8-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation and standard 10-mm implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in posterior maxillae: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Nowadays, short dental implants are being increasingly applied in extremely resorbed posterior regions. The recent studies have indicated that short implants present a similar success rate to conventional implants. It is assumed that short implants can avoid additional surgical morbidity and are less technically demanding. However, high-quality evidence (≥Ib: evidence from at least one randomized controlled trial) on comparing the clinical outcome of short implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) technique is limited.

Methods/Design

The proposed study is designed as a prospective single-center, three-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We plan to enroll 150 patients in need of dental implant treatment in the posterior maxilla. The inclusion criteria include: age ≧18 years, partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla for at least 3 months from tooth loss, residual bone height ranging from 6 to 8 mm, sufficient bone width (≥6 mm) in the edentulous region. The patients will be divided into three groups according to a table of random numbers: group 1: short implants (6 mm) alone; group 2: short implants (8 mm) combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE); group 3: standard implants (10 mm) combined with OSFE. The assignment will be concealed from the clinical operators until the beginning of implant surgery. The outcome examiners and patients will be kept blinded to the assignment. Implant survival rates, implant success rates, complications, resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements, marginal bone level, treatment time and patient-reported outcome (visual analogue scale for intraoperative discomfort and postoperative pain) will be recorded. Clinical re-evaluations will be performed at 12, 24, 36 and 60 months after crown placement.

Discussion

The results of the trial will support better decision-making for dental implant treatment in atrophic maxillary ridges. If favorable, the use of short implants may avoid adjunct procedures used for implant insertion, thus reducing operative time, complexity and postoperative discomfort.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02350075 (registered on 17 February 2015).