Comparison of a novel trephine drill with conventional rotary instruments for maxillary sinus floor elevation

Three-dimensional guided lateral window sinus lift and simultaneous implant placement: A dental technique

Lateral window sinus floor elevation is typically performed blind, and complications may be encountered. Guided surgery can help make the procedure more predictable with fewer complications and a shorter surgical time. The presented technique uses a surgical template for simultaneous implant placement and sinus floor elevation. An implant platform is used for determining the size, shape, and location of the window and the osteotomy depth. The technique uses a Ø5 mm bone profiler with a stop compatible with the surgical guide design to conduct the osteotomy, conservatively guiding the lateral window osteotomy in 3 dimensions.

Repositioning of the bone window in lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement: A retrospective radiographic study

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate whether repositioning the bone window leads to a better outcome of three-dimensional sinus augmentation in lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) with simultaneous implant placement.

METHODS

34 patients with a total of 40 implants (14: test group, 26: control group) receiving LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective research. CBCT images were taken before surgery, immediately and 6 months after surgery. The two-dimensional augmentation parameters, including apical bone height (ABH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and palatal/buccal bone height (PBH/BBH), and three-dimensional parameters, including augmentation volume (AV) and palatal/buccal augmentation volume (PAV/BAV), were measured. The lateral defect length (LDL) and lateral window length (LWL) were also measured to evaluate the lateral antrostomy recovery.

RESULTS

At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction rates at ABH, ESBG, and BBH of the test group (ABH: 10.41% ± 30.30%, ESBG: 2.55% ± 8.91%, BBH: 2.50% ± 8.65%) were significantly lower than those of the control group (ABH: 25.10% ± 22.02%, ESBG: 11.47% ± 9.79%, BBH: 7.10% ± 5.37%; p < .05). In addition, the test group showed better three-dimensional augmentation stability on the buccal side (BAV reduction: 15.51% ± 10.86% vs. 27.15% ± 12.61%; p < .05). Moreover, the LDL/LWL ratio of the test group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, repositioning of the bone window in LSFE with simultaneous implant placement could contribute to endo-sinus augmentation stability on the buccal side at the 6-month follow-up. Moreover, it would also facilitate recovery of the lateral antrostomy defect.

Complications in sinus lifting procedures: Classification and management

Open and closed sinus lifting procedures are predictable methods to augment the bone needed for appropriate implant placement in the posterior maxilla in cases where available bone is limited. However, these techniques may give rise to complications and associated comorbidities. In the case of open sinus lifting, perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during osteotomy is the most common complication, with an incidence rate of around 20%-25%. Apart from those complications associated with oral surgery in general (such as swelling or hematoma), there are specific complications of open sinus lifting procedures that may arise less frequently (chronic rhinosinusitis, hemorrhage, or ostium blockage by overfilling) but which may nevertheless compromise the viability of the graft and/or the implants and cause substantial discomfort to the patient. Closed sinus lifting is a less invasive approach that allows transcrestal placement of the implants in cases where there is sufficient residual bone height. However, it may also be associated with specific complications, including membrane perforation, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, and implant displacement to the sinus cavity. New technologies have been proposed to reduce these complications and comorbidities associated with conventional sinus lifting procedures, such as the use of piezoelectric devices and hydraulic sinus lift or reamer burs. The evidence supporting their effectiveness and safety, however, is still lacking. A detailed medical history together with a thorough radiographic and clinical examination are essential prior to any kind of bone regenerative augmentation involving the maxillary sinus. Moreover, it is recommended to employ the most appropriate surgical technique for the specific characteristics of the case and, at the same time, accommodating the experience and skills of the surgeon.

Schneiderian Membrane Perforation Rate and Increase in Bone Temperature During Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation by Means of Er: YAG Laser-An Animal Study in Pigs

PURPOSE

To assess the time of preparation, bone temperature increase, and the Schneiderian membrane perforation rate during maxillary sinus floor elevation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research included 30 maxillary sinuses (n = 30) of a pig, divided into 2 groups (n = 15). The lateral bony windows were created using Er:YAG laser (200 mJ, 15 Hz, energy density: 25.48 J/cm) and a diamond bur (control). The membrane was elevated using laser (50 mJ, 50 Hz) and hand instruments. The bone temperature was measured by K-type thermocouple.

RESULTS

Significantly lower rates of the Schneiderian membrane perforation were found in the laser group (6.67%) compared with the bur (33%) (P < 0.05). The significant higher increase in temperature (mean 7.6°C) was found in the experimental group as compared with the control group (mean 2°C) (P = 0.0000033). The average time necessary for the laser bony window osteotomy was 10 minutes and 37 seconds, whereas using the bur required middling 5 minutes and 50 seconds (P = 0.000283).

CONCLUSION

The application of Er:YAG laser may significantly reduce the risk of iatrogenic perforation of the Schneiderian membrane and does not cause an irreversible thermal damage in a pig model.

Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric device-a meta-analysis

Objectives

Maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) is a successful and predictable intervention with low complication rates. Perforations of the Schneiderian membrane may occur impairing the general success. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of membrane perforations between conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric devices in a meta-analysis.

Material and methods

An electronic research on MEDLINE and PubMed database was performed evaluating the literature from 1980 till 2016. Meta-analysis was performed with the studies matching the inclusion criteria. The incidence of perforations between conventional and piezo during the lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation was determined, and forest plots and a t test for significance analysis were performed.

Results

The search provided 377 articles of which 69 could be included. Selected non-randomised and non-controlled prospective and retrospective studies were incorporated. Conventional rotary instruments were associated with a perforation rate of 24%, the piezoelectric devices with 8% with statistically significant difference between both modalities (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Membrane perforations in MSA may be significantly reduced applying piezoelectrical devices for MSA.

Hydraulic sinus lift technique in future site development: clinical and histomorphometric analysis of human biopsies

PURPOSE

The fluid-dynamic technique is characterized by the hydraulic detachment of the mucosa and simultaneous filling of the sub-Schneiderian space, with a graft material of paste-like consistency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors performed 13 future site developments, on as many patients (4 men; 9 women; age 49.46 ± 12.44 years), using a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite dispersed in an aqueous matrix as graft material. In the second stage, performed at 5.96 ± 1.72 months, 13 implants were placed after harvesting bone biopsies from the regenerated sites. The above samples were subjected to histological and histomorphometric analysis. The histomorphometric results were then compared with the bone density, measured in Hounsfield units.

RESULTS

The average percentage of vital bone was of 29.08% ± 14.7%, whereas the bone marrow and graft material were 59.75% ± 11.19% and 11.16% ± 10.88%, respectively. The percentage of vital bone has a significant correlation with the bone density of the recipient site (P = 0.003117). In contrast, the bone marrow (P = 0.08692) and the graft (P = 0.0799) do not show a significant correlation with this parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest the validity of the method in the regeneration of bone volume in the subantral region.