Topographic Assessment of Calcified Material After Sinus Floor Augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1219-1223
Author(s):  
Carlo Soardi ◽  
Davide Zaffe ◽  
Barbara Soardi ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang
Keyword(s):  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor

scholarly journals Late recovery from foreign body sinusitis after maxillary sinus floor augmentation

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (dec11 1) ◽  
pp. bcr2012007434-bcr2012007434 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Felisati ◽  
A. M. Saibene ◽  
R. Lenzi ◽  
C. Pipolo
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Body ◽  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Late Recovery ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation

scholarly journals Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Alfredo Díaz-Olivares ◽  
Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann ◽  
Natalia Martínez-Rodríguez ◽  
José María Martínez-González ◽  
Juan López-Quiles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Schneiderian Membrane ◽  
Membrane Perforation ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation

Abstract Background This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival. Material and methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair. Conclusions Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.

scholarly journals PRF-Solution in Large Sinus Membrane Perforation with Simultaneous Implant Placement-Micro CT and Histological Analysis

Membranes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Horia Mihail Barbu ◽  
Stefania Andrada Iancu ◽  
Violeta Hancu ◽  
Daniel Referendaru ◽  
Joseph Nissan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Micro Ct ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Membrane Perforation ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Membrane

Background: The purpose of the study was to analyze the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as a single augmentation material for complicated cases of maxillary sinus floor elevation, resulting from membrane perforation or previous infections. Methods: Implant insertion in the posterior region of the maxilla was simultaneously performed with maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Schneiderian membrane elevation can be accompanied by extremely serious sinus membrane perforation, due to accidental tearing or intended incision for mucocele removal. PRFs were placed in the sinus cavity both for membrane sealing and sinus floor grafting. Radiological, histological and micro-CT analyses were performed. Implant survival was assessed every 6 months for 1 to 4 years, with a mean follow up of 1.8 years, after prosthetic loading. Radiological examinations were performed on CBCT at 9 and 12 and 36 months postoperatively and revealed improved degrees of radiopacity. Results: 19 implants were simultaneously placed in the course of nine maxillary sinus floor augmentation surgeries, with successful outcomes in terms of bone grafting and implant integration. New bone formation was evidenced 12 months postoperatively on radiological examination, micro-CT analysis, and histological analysis of a harvested bone segment from the augmented maxillary sinus. The mean gain in bone height of the sinus floor augmentation was 6.43 mm, with a maximum of 9 mm. The mean amount of vital bone obtained from histologic assessment was 52.30%, while bone volume/tissue volume ratio in micro-CT 3D had a mean of 50.32%. Conclusions: PRF may be considered as an alternative treatment for a single surgery of sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement, even in complicated cases with significant sinus membrane tearing.

scholarly journals Two-Year Follow-Up of 4-mm-Long Implants Used as Distal Support of Full-Arch FDPs Compared to 10-mm Implants Installed after Sinus Floor Elevation. A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3846
Author(s):  
Fabio Rossi ◽  
Lorenzo Tuci ◽  
Lorenzo Ferraioli ◽  
Emanuele Ricci ◽  
Andreea Suerica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Test Group ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Relevant Difference ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Distal Support ◽  
Augmentation Procedure

Background: In edentulous patients, bone resorption cannot allow the installation of standard implants and it is demanded to use short implants in the residual alveolar bone or longer implants in grafted bone. Aim: To compare the survival and bone level changes of standard plus short 4-mm implants used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with standard (10-mm) implants placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure. Material and Methods: Full-arch FDPs supported by six implants were randomly placed in both groups. In the control group, all implants were 10 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. The distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was installed after 4 months from bilaterally sinus floor elevation. In the test group (short group), the distal implant in both sides of the maxilla was 4 mm long and 4.1 mm in diameter. No sinus floor elevations were performed in the test group. Clinical assessments and X-rays were taken at prosthesis delivering and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: The changes over time of the bone level for the short implants were −0.01 ± 0.11 mm, −0.04 ± 0.13 mm, −0.17 ± 0.29 mm, and −0.28 ± 0.37 mm after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from prosthesis delivering, respectively. For the standard implants, bone changes were −0.21 ± 0.33 mm (p = 0.103), −0.30 ± 0.32 mm (p = 0.023), −0.40 ± 0.37 mm (p = 0.144), and −0.54 ± 0.49 mm (p = 0.128), respectively. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups. Conclusions: Similar results on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss were observed for the short and standard implants, placed in association with a bilateral sinus floor augmentation procedure, used as distal support of a maxillary full-arch FDP. A statistically relevant difference was found only at 12 months after loading between the two groups (p = 0.023).

Surgical Ciliated Cyst Following Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Case Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinsuke Yamamoto ◽  
Keigo Maeda ◽  
Izumi Kouchi ◽  
Yuzo Hirai ◽  
Naoki Taniike ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Maxillary Sinusitis ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Japanese Woman ◽  
Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽  
Ciliated Cyst

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation is considered to play a critical role in dental implant treatment. Although many complications, such as maxillary sinusitis and infection, are well known, few reports are available on the risk of surgical ciliated cyst following the procedure. Here, we report a case of surgical ciliated cyst following maxillary sinus floor augmentation. A 55-year-old Japanese woman was referred to our hospital because of alveolar bone atrophy in the bilateral maxilla. We performed bilateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation by the lateral window technique without covering the window. The Schneiderian membrane did not perforate during the operation. She returned to our hospital after 9 years due to swelling of the left buccal region. Computerized tomography revealed a well-defined radiolucent area with radiodense border intraosseously localized in the left maxilla. We performed enucleation of the cyst with the patient under general anesthesia. Histological examination of the specimen showed a surgical ciliated cyst. In conclusion, the course of this patient has 2 important implications. First, the sinus membrane entrapped in the grafted bone without visible perforation and or tearing can develop into a surgical ciliated cyst. Second, there is a possibility that covering the lateral window tightly might prevent the development of a surgical ciliated cyst.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document