| Literature DB >> 35867239 |
Teresa Lombardi1, Luca Lamazza2, Fabio Bernardello3, Grzegorz Ziętek4, Claudio Stacchi5, Giuseppe Troiano6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate clinical and radiographic outcomes of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation performed with an injectable xenograft in gel form, analyzing general, local and surgical variables possibly influencing the results.Entities:
Keywords: Gel graft; Maxillary sinus augmentation; Transcrestal approach
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35867239 PMCID: PMC9307698 DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00431-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Implant Dent ISSN: 2198-4034
Fig. 1Direct visual check of Schneiderian membrane integrity after crestal osteotomy performed with specific burs for transcrestal sinus approach
Fig. 2Syringe of xenogenous porcine bone substitute in gel form with stainless steel insert to facilitate graft injection
Fig. 3After performing crestal osteotomy and checking the Schneiderian membrane integrity (A), the graft is directly injected into the sub-antral space (B)
Fig. 4Pre-surgical CBCT with cross-section showing a narrow sinus anatomy and RBH < 5 mm (A) and panorex image highlighting the presence of a sharp Underwood septum (B). Post-operative CBCT with cross-section showing abundant amount of gel graft apically to implant apex to counteract the expected shrinkage during the healing phase (C) and panorex confirming sinus membrane integrity (D)
Demographic and surgical characteristics of the included patients
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. N: no; Y: yes; n: number; min: minutes
Fig. 5CBCT cross-section images taken presurgically (A), at T0 (B) and T1 (C) showing the “tent-pole” effect of the implant apex
Fig. 6Periapical radiographs taken immediately after transcrestal sinus floor elevation without simultaneous implant insertion (A) and after 6 months of healing (B): an evident shrinkage of the regenerated volume is present
Univariate regression model for the outcome “Vertical Bone Gain”
| Number of cases = 71 | Univariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vertical bone gain | Coeff | [95% CI] | |
| Age | − 0.01 | [− 0.07–0.04] | 0.662 |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 1 | ||
| Male | − 0.08 | [− 1.12–0.96] | 0.882 |
| History of periodontitis | |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | − 0.35 | [− 1.34–0.64] | 0.487 |
| Smoking | |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 0.30 | [− 0.72–1.32] | 0.558 |
| Residual bone height | 0.69 | [− 0.45–1.84] | 0.236 |
| Sinus width | |||
| Narrow | 1 | ||
| Wide | − 0.94 | [− 2.71–0.84] | 0.302 |
| Surgical technique | |||
| Osteotomes | 1 | ||
| Burs | − 0.40 | [− 1.97–1.16] | 0.615 |
| Piezoelectric tips | − 2.42 | [− 5.15–0.31] | 0.083 |
| Implant length | − 524.5 | [− 1075.7–26.62] | 0.062 |
| Membrane perforation | |||
| Absent | 1 | ||
| Present | − 3.01 | [− 5.06 to − 0.95] | |
| Implant insertion | |||
| Immediate | 1 | ||
| Delayed | − 2.64 | [− 4.06 to − 1.22] | |
Coeff. coefficient, CI confidence interval, * p-value < 0.05
Univariate and multivariate regression models for the outcome “Graft Shrinkage”
| Number of cases = 71 | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graft shrinkage | Coeff | [95% CI] | Coeff | [95% CI] | ||
| Age | − 0.02 | [− 0.44–0.40] | 0.942 | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 1 | |||||
| Male | − 2.84 | [− 13.56–7.88] | 0.604 | |||
| History of periodontitis | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | |||||
| No | − 2.19 | [− 12.2–7.82] | 0.669 | |||
| Smoking | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | |||||
| No | − 11.98 | [− 21.88–− 2.08] | ||||
| Residual bone height | − 7.88 | [− 18.28–2.52] | 0.138 | |||
| Sinus width | ||||||
| Narrow | 1 | |||||
| Wide | 6.64 | [− 12.09–25.37] | 0.487 | |||
| Surgical technique | ||||||
| Osteotomes | 1 | |||||
| Burs | − 13.70 | [− 26.34–− 1.06] | ||||
| Piezoelectric tips | 11.30 | [− 16.62–39.23] | 0.428 | |||
| Implant length | − 5.33 | [− 9.97– to 0.69] | − 3.60 | [− 6.55–0.65] | ||
| Membrane perforation | ||||||
| Absent | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Present | 32.06 | [10.43–53.69] | 28.08 | [9.25–46.91] | ||
| Implant insertion | ||||||
| Immediate | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Delayed | 36.67 | [24.66–48.68] | 25.77 | [17.56–33.98] | ||
Coeff. coefficient, CI confidence interval, *: p-value < 0.05