J W Olson1, C D Dent, H F Morris, S Ochi. 1. Department of Periodontics, Endodontics, and Dental Hygiene, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not uncommon for the placement of endosseous dental implants in the maxillary posterior jaw region to be complicated by the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus. When this occurs, the residual bone between the floor of the sinus and the crestal ridge is inadequate for the placement of implants. The sinus lift procedure provides a way to increase the amount of available bone and the placement of longer implants. METHODS:One hundred twenty (120) implants were placed in 45 augmented maxillary sinuses. Patients ranged in age from 34 to 78 years. The implant design included a limited number of non-hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium screws, with the majority of the implants being HA-coated cylinders, grooved cylinders, and screws. The augmentation materials were autogenous bone, allogenic bone (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft, DFDBA), alloplastic bone (HA), combination grafts of HA and DFDBA, and combination grafts of autogenous bone and DFDBA. All the cases were successfully restored with implant-supported, bar-retained overdentures or fixed partial dentures. The follow-up began at Stage 2 uncovering and ranged from 5 to 71 months, with a mean of 38.2 and standard deviation of 14.6 months. RESULTS: Three (2.5%) of the 120 implants failed between the period of implant placement and 36 months. Failures appeared to be associated with a history of smoking. Other complications encountered during the study are presented. Implant survival was higher in those placed in grafted sinuses (97.5%) than in those placed in the posterior maxilla without sinus grafting (90.3%). CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of implants placed in augmented sinuses to support dental prostheses.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is not uncommon for the placement of endosseous dental implants in the maxillary posterior jaw region to be complicated by the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus. When this occurs, the residual bone between the floor of the sinus and the crestal ridge is inadequate for the placement of implants. The sinus lift procedure provides a way to increase the amount of available bone and the placement of longer implants. METHODS: One hundred twenty (120) implants were placed in 45 augmented maxillary sinuses. Patients ranged in age from 34 to 78 years. The implant design included a limited number of non-hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium screws, with the majority of the implants being HA-coated cylinders, grooved cylinders, and screws. The augmentation materials were autogenous bone, allogenic bone (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft, DFDBA), alloplastic bone (HA), combination grafts of HA and DFDBA, and combination grafts of autogenous bone and DFDBA. All the cases were successfully restored with implant-supported, bar-retained overdentures or fixed partial dentures. The follow-up began at Stage 2 uncovering and ranged from 5 to 71 months, with a mean of 38.2 and standard deviation of 14.6 months. RESULTS: Three (2.5%) of the 120 implants failed between the period of implant placement and 36 months. Failures appeared to be associated with a history of smoking. Other complications encountered during the study are presented. Implant survival was higher in those placed in grafted sinuses (97.5%) than in those placed in the posterior maxilla without sinus grafting (90.3%). CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of implants placed in augmented sinuses to support dental prostheses.