nach oben

Clinical Oral Investigations

Erschienen in:

10.03.2021 | Original Article

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

verfasst von: Miljana Bacevic, Yoann Compeyron, Geoffrey Lecloux, Eric Rompen, France Lambert

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 9/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two sinus floor elevation techniques: the conventional lateral window technique versus the transalveolar approach using a hydrodynamic ultrasonic device.

Materials and methods

The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial, and participants were randomly allocated to the control group (lateral window: LW) or to the test group (hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: HTA). The intraoperative and postoperative data, including procedure duration and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), were collected during the surgery and up to 1 year post-surgery. Additionally, qualitative assessment of gained bone volumes and implant survival rates was recorded.

Results

Twenty-two patients were included in the study. The mean surgical time was significantly longer in the HTA compared to the LW group (48.1 ± 11.2 min vs. 35.2 ± 9.1 min, P = 0.0011). Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occurred in 2/11 and 5/11 patients in the LW and the HTA group, respectively (P = 0.36). Postoperatively, higher morbidity and consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were associated with the LW group. However, self-reported satisfaction with surgical procedures was similar in the two groups. At 1 year, implant survival rates of 80% in the HTA group and 100% in the LW group were recorded (P = 0.12).

Conclusions

Although the new transalveolar approach seems to reduce postoperative morbidity, an increased risk of intraoperative complications compared to the LW approach needs to be considered when choosing a technique.

Clinical relevance

Our results provide new insights regarding clinical and radiographic outcomes of HTA and may help further determine indications for its use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrivals.gov: NCT04499625

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Barone A, Covani U (2019) Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(10):2039–2046 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278239107006143CrossRef

Lambert F, Lecloux G, Rompen E (2010) One-step approach for implant placement and subantral bone regeneration using bovine hydroxyapatite: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(3):598–606PubMed

Sharma A, Rahul GR (2012) Zygomatic implants/fixture: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol 39(2):215–224 https://www.joionline.org/doi/full/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00055CrossRef

Starch-Jensen T, Jensen JD (2019) Maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a review of selected treatment modalities. J Oral Maxillofac Res 8(3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5676313/

Fan T, Li Y, Deng W-W, Wu T, Zhang W (2017) Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: a meta-analysis of RCTs: short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(1):207–215 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cid.12432CrossRef

Boyne PJ, James RA (1980) Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 38(8):613–616PubMed

Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 35(8 Suppl):216–240CrossRef

Summers RB (1994) A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compend Newtown Pa 15(2):152 154–6, 158 passim; quiz 162

Fugazzotto PA (2001) The modified trephine/osteotome sinus augmentation technique: technical considerations and discussion of indications. Implant Dent 10(4):259–264CrossRef

10.

Chen L, Cha J (2005) An 8-year retrospective study: 1,100 patients receiving 1,557 implants using the minimally invasive hydraulic sinus condensing technique. J Periodontol 76(3):482–491 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.2005.76.3.482CrossRef

11.

Sforza NM, Marzadori M, Zucchelli G (2008) Simplified osteotome sinus augmentation technique with simultaneous implant placement: a clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 28(3):291–299PubMed

12.

Lindhe J, Lang NP, Berglundh T, Giannobile WV, Sanz M (eds) (2015) Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry, 6th edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Chichester, West Sussex; Ames, Iowa

13.

Pal US, Sharma NK, Singh RK, Mahammad S, Mehrotra D, Singh N et al (2012) Direct vs. indirect sinus lift procedure: a comparison. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 3(1):31–37 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513806/CrossRef

14.

Troedhan A, Schlichting I, Kurrek A, Wainwright M (2014) Primary implant stability in augmented sinuslift-sites after completed bone regeneration: a randomized controlled clinical study comparing four subantrally inserted biomaterials. Sci Rep 4:5877 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05877CrossRef

15.

Stelzle F, Benner K-U (2011) Evaluation of different methods of indirect sinus floor elevation for elevation heights of 10mm: an experimental ex vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 13(2):124–133CrossRef

16.

Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M (2012) Biological principles and physiology of bone regeneration under the Schneiderian membrane after sinus lift surgery: a radiological study in 14 patients treated with the transcrestal hydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinus lift (intralift). Int J Dent 576238:2012 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382962/

17.

Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Schlichting I, Fischak-Treitl B, Ladentrog M (2013) The transcrestal hydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinuslift: results of a 2-year prospective multicentre study on 404 patients, 446 sinuslift sites and 637 inserted implants. Open J Stomatol 03:471 http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=41113&#abstractCrossRef

18.

Temmerman A, Dessel JV, Cortellini S, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M (2017) Volumetric changes of grafted volumes and the Schneiderian membrane after transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation procedures: a clinical, pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 44(6):660–671 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpe.12728CrossRef

19.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63(8):e1–e37 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435610001034

20.

Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E (2004) The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol 75(4):511–516CrossRef

21.

Shlomi B, Horowitz I, Kahn A, Dobriyan A, Chaushu G (2004) The effect of sinus membrane perforation and repair with Lambone on the outcome of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a radiographic assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(4):559–562PubMed

22.

Hernández-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C (2008) Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(1):91–98 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01372.xPubMed

23.

Khoury F (1999) Augmentation of the sinus floor with mandibular bone block and simultaneous implantation: a 6-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14(4):557–564PubMed

24.

Stricker A, Voss PJ, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Maxillary sinus floor augmention with autogenous bone grafts to enable placement of SLA-surfaced implants: preliminary results after 15–40 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 14(2):207–212 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140211.xCrossRef

25.

Reiser GM, Rabinovitz Z, Bruno J, Damoulis PD, Griffin TJ (2001) Evaluation of maxillary sinus membrane response following elevation with the crestal osteotome technique in human cadavers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(6):833–840PubMed

26.

Ardekian L, Oved-Peleg E, Mactei EE, Peled M (2006) The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 64(2):277–282CrossRef

27.

Viña-Almunia J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M (2009) Influence of perforation of the sinus membrane on the survival rate of implants placed after direct sinus lift. Literature update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 14(3):E133–E136PubMed

28.

Aimetti M, Romagnoli R, Ricci G, Massei G (2001) Maxillary sinus elevation: the effect of macrolacerations and microlacerations of the sinus membrane as determined by endoscopy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 21(6):581–589PubMed

29.

Pikos MA (1999) Maxillary sinus membrane repair: report of a technique for large perforations. Implant Dent 8(1):29–34CrossRef

30.

Hernández-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C (2008) Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:91–98 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01372.xPubMed

31.

Testori T, Weinstein RL, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M (2012) Risk factor analysis following maxillary sinus augmentation: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27(5):1170–1176PubMed

32.

Velázquez-Cayón R, Romero-Ruiz MM, Torres-Lagares D, Pérez-Dorao B, Wainwright M, Abalos-Labruzzi C et al (2012) Hydrodynamic ultrasonic maxillary sinus lift: review of a new technique and presentation of a clinical case. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17(2):e271–e275 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448305/CrossRef

33.

Afrashtehfar KI, Katsoulis J, Koka S, Igarashi K (2020) Single versus splinted short implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg:S2468–S7855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.08.013

34.

Younes F, Eghbali A, Goemaere T, De Bruyckere T, Cosyn J (2018) Patient-reported outcomes after lateral wall sinus floor elevation: a systematic review. Implant Dent 27(2):236–245 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29319545/CrossRef

Titel: Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial
verfasst von: Miljana Bacevic
Yoann Compeyron
Geoffrey Lecloux
Eric Rompen
France Lambert
Publikationsdatum: 10.03.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 9/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03847-2

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Trial registration

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Newsletter

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Trial registration

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2021

Application of optical coherence tomography to study the structural features of oral mucosa in biopsy tissues of oral dysplasia and carcinomas

Effect of locally delivered adjunctive antibiotics during surgical periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Is dietary pattern a mediator of the relationship between socioeconomic status and dental caries?

Resin composite adhesion to dentin using different curing lights and adhesive systems applied under electric current

Can Kinesio taping improve discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative stability and outcomes of two surgical approaches for correction of class III asymmetry with lip or occlusal cant

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Newsletter