Sarav Patel1, David Lee1, Kyle Shiffler1, Tara Aghaloo2, Peter Moy3, Joan Pi-Anfruns4. 1. Dental Student, School of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Associate Professor, School of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Nobel Biocare Endowed Chair, Surgical Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Assistant Clinical Professor, Dental Implant Center, School of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: jpianfruns@dentistry.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to quantitatively compare the stability of implants placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla using 3 sinus augmentation techniques: osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and 1- and 2-step lateral window techniques (LWTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 50 patients, 29 to 85 years old. One hundred twenty-eight implants were subdivided based on sinus augmentation technique as determined by available native bone height. Thirty-three implants were placed using OSFE in at least 8.0 mm of bone. Forty-four implants were synchronously placed using 1-step LWT in 3.0 to 7.9 mm of bone. In cases with less than 3.0 mm of bone, the 2-step LWT was performed and the remaining 51 implants were placed after a period of healing. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was recorded from RFA at stage 1 and subsequently at stage 2 (follow-up) 3 to 12 months later. Statistical analysis was completed using t test and analysis of variance to assess differences in implant stability over time and among techniques, respectively. RESULTS: ISQ values at placement averaged 70.9, 68.9, and 72.2 for OSFE, LWT, and LWT with delayed placement, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (P = .2). At stage 2 (follow-up), average ISQ values were 76.7, 77.7, and 78.7 for OSFE, LWT, and LWT with delayed placement, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (P = .3). In contrast, differences in ISQ at stage 2 (follow-up) versus stage 1 were statistically significant for all 3 techniques (P < .01). OSFE, 1-step LWT, and 2-step LWT yielded average increases in ISQ of 5.8, 8.8, and 6.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of OSFE, 1-step LWT, and 2-step LWT to augment bone in the atrophic edentulous posterior maxilla. All 3 methods provide predictable osseointegration and yield statistical increases in ISQ at stage 2 (follow-up) compared with time of placement. With appropriate case selection according to native vertical bone height, there are no statistical differences in ISQ among these 3 techniques at either stage.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to quantitatively compare the stability of implants placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla using 3 sinus augmentation techniques: osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and 1- and 2-step lateral window techniques (LWTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 50 patients, 29 to 85 years old. One hundred twenty-eight implants were subdivided based on sinus augmentation technique as determined by available native bone height. Thirty-three implants were placed using OSFE in at least 8.0 mm of bone. Forty-four implants were synchronously placed using 1-step LWT in 3.0 to 7.9 mm of bone. In cases with less than 3.0 mm of bone, the 2-step LWT was performed and the remaining 51 implants were placed after a period of healing. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was recorded from RFA at stage 1 and subsequently at stage 2 (follow-up) 3 to 12 months later. Statistical analysis was completed using t test and analysis of variance to assess differences in implant stability over time and among techniques, respectively. RESULTS: ISQ values at placement averaged 70.9, 68.9, and 72.2 for OSFE, LWT, and LWT with delayed placement, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (P = .2). At stage 2 (follow-up), average ISQ values were 76.7, 77.7, and 78.7 for OSFE, LWT, and LWT with delayed placement, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (P = .3). In contrast, differences in ISQ at stage 2 (follow-up) versus stage 1 were statistically significant for all 3 techniques (P < .01). OSFE, 1-step LWT, and 2-step LWT yielded average increases in ISQ of 5.8, 8.8, and 6.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of OSFE, 1-step LWT, and 2-step LWT to augment bone in the atrophic edentulous posterior maxilla. All 3 methods provide predictable osseointegration and yield statistical increases in ISQ at stage 2 (follow-up) compared with time of placement. With appropriate case selection according to native vertical bone height, there are no statistical differences in ISQ among these 3 techniques at either stage.