» Articles » PMID: 35591298

Radiographic Analysis of Graft Dimensional Changes in Transcrestal Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 May 20
PMID 35591298
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background. The maxillary sinus lift is a popular and predictable technique associated with implant-supported rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla. The aim of the present retrospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of transcrestal maxillary sinus augmentation and the graft resorption pattern using different heterologous bone substitutes. Methods. A total of 75 sinus-grafting procedures were performed and 89 implants were placed in 66 patients, 24 males and 42 females, with mean age 67.9 ± 10.64 years (range 43−84 years). Nineteen subjects were smokers. The mean follow-up period was 93.33 ± 54.71 months (range 14−240 months). Clinical and radiographical evaluations were performed. Graft height and width were measured at baseline and at the latest follow-up. Results. Mesiodistal and vertical resorption averaged 9.3 ± 20.7% (standard deviation), and 5.04 ± 9.9% of the postoperative size, respectively, considering the graft as the unit. Linear regression analysis showed that graft resorption in both the vertical and the mesiodistal dimension is independent of the follow-up time. Conversely, there was a trend for greater resorption when increasing the postoperative graft size, in both vertical (p = 0.001) and horizontal (p = 0.007) dimensions. When grouping the dimensional changes by graft particle size (only small (<300 μm) particles, combination of small and medium (>500 μm)/large (>1000 μm) particles, and only medium/large particles), there was a trend for greater resorption associated with smaller particles, but it was not significant; neither in the mesiodistal nor in the vertical dimension (p = 0.17 and p = 0.25, respectively). No implant was lost during the observation period. In conclusion, the transcrestal technique for maxillary sinus augmentation documented a high level of predictability. The low clinical morbidity and the contextual dental implant positioning is clinically useful in relation to a significant reduction of the time required for implant restoration, a consistent decrease of the number of surgical phases, and a cost-effectiveness approach for the rehabilitation. The graft resorption pattern in all cases was compatible with persistent implant protection and support.

Citing Articles

Progress in Dentin-Derived Bone Graft Materials: A New Xenogeneic Dentin-Derived Material with Retained Organic Component Allows for Broader and Easier Application.

Sapoznikov L, Humphrey M Cells. 2024; 13(21.

PMID: 39513913 PMC: 11544873. DOI: 10.3390/cells13211806.


Clinical Indications and Outcomes of Sinus Floor Augmentation With Bone Substitutes: An Evidence-Based Review.

Saleh M, Sabri H, Di Pietro N, Comuzzi L, Geurs N, Bou Semaan L Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024; 27(1):e13400.

PMID: 39415739 PMC: 11789849. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13400.


Analysis of bone quality formation in sinus lifts with immediate implants.

Soler-Alcaraz S, Guerrero-Sanchez Y, Del Aguila O, Bernabeu-Mira J, Camacho-Alonso F BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1214.

PMID: 39402523 PMC: 11472588. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04953-9.


[Graftless maxillary sinus lift with simultaneous implant placement: a case report].

Coronel Zabalbu B, Caceres O, Vergara-Buenaventura A Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2024; 12(2):e202.

PMID: 39119129 PMC: 11304858. DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-1202-2024-202.


Effect of Different Graft Material Consistencies in the Treatment of Minimal Bone Dehiscence: A Retrospective Pilot Study.

Menini M, Canullo L, Iacono R, Triestino A, Caponio V, Savadori P Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39056985 PMC: 11275297. DOI: 10.3390/dj12070198.


References
1.
Fabbro M, Rosano G, Taschieri S . Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008; 116(6):497-506. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00571.x. View

2.
Starch-Jensen T, Deluiz D, Vitenson J, Bruun N, Tinoco E . Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Compared with a Composite Grafting Material or Bone Substitute Alone: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing Volumetric Stability of the Grafting Material. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021; 12(1):e1. PMC: 8085675. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2021.12101. View

3.
Huwais S, Mazor Z, Ioannou A, Gluckman H, Neiva R . A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Study with Up-to-5-Year Follow-up Utilizing a Method that Enhances Bone Density and Allows for Transcrestal Sinus Augmentation Through Compaction Grafting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33(6):1305-1311. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6770. View

4.
Wanschitz F, Figl M, Wagner A, Rolf E . Measurement of volume changes after sinus floor augmentation with a phycogenic hydroxyapatite. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(3):433-8. View

5.
Pesce P, Menini M, Canullo L, Khijmatgar S, Modenese L, Gallifante G . Radiographic and Histomorphometric Evaluation of Biomaterials Used for Lateral Sinus Augmentation: A Systematic Review on the Effect of Residual Bone Height and Vertical Graft Size on New Bone Formation and Graft Shrinkage. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(21). PMC: 8584826. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214996. View