8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      15-Year Retrospective Study on the Success Rate of Maxillary Sinus Augmentation and Implants: Influence of Bone Substitute Type, Presurgical Bone Height, and Membrane Perforation during Sinus Lift

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To evaluate the success rate of bone grafts and implants carried out at the Latin American Institute for Research and Dental Education (ILAPEO), considering the following: (i) the different pure bone substitutes (autogenous, xenogeneic, and alloplastic), (ii) the presurgical bone height, and (iii) how the treatment is compromised when membrane perforation occurs during sinus lift in maxillary sinus surgeries. Material and Methods. The initial sample comprised 1040 records of maxillary sinus lifting surgeries. After evaluation, the final sample retained 472 grafts performed using the lateral window technique with a total of 757 implants. The grafts were divided into 3 groups: (i) autogenous bone ( n = 197), (ii) xenogenous bovine bone ( n = 182), and (iii) alloplastic material ( n = 93). One calibrated examiner classified the sample into two groups based on the residual bone height (<4 mm and ≥4 mm) of the area of interest measured on parasagittal sections of tomographic images. Data on membrane perforation occurrences in each group were collected; qualitative variables were described using frequency, expressed as percentages. The Chi-square test was used to analyze the success of the graft types and the survival rate of the implants as a function of the grafted material and the residual bone height. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate the survival rate of bone grafts and implants according to the classifications adopted in this retrospective study.

          Results

          The success rate of grafts and implants was 98.3% and 97.2%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate among the different bone substitutes ( p = 0.140). Only 8 grafts (1.7%) and 21 implants (2.8%) failed. There was a greater success rate for both grafts (96.5%) and implants (97.4%) when the bone height was ≥4 mm. The success rate in the 49 sinuses in which the membrane was perforated was 97.96% for the grafts and 96.2% for the implants. The follow-up periods after rehabilitation ranged from 3 months to 13 years.

          Conclusions

          Within the limitations of the data analyzed in this retrospective study, maxillary sinus lift was a viable surgical technique that enabled implant placement with a predictable long-term success rate, regardless of the type of material used. The presence of membrane perforation did not interfere with the success rate obtained for grafts and implants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The logrank test.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review.

              Grafting the floor of the maxillary sinus has become the most common surgical intervention for increasing alveolar bone height prior to the placement of endosseous dental implants in the posterior maxilla. Outcomes of this procedure may be affected by specific surgical techniques, simultaneous versus delayed implant placement, use of barrier membranes over the lateral window, selection of graft material, and the surface characteristics and the length and width of the implants. The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of the sinus augmentation procedure and compare the results achieved with various surgical techniques, grafting materials, and implants. In patients requiring dental implant placement, what is the effect on implant survival of maxillary sinus augmentation versus implant placement in the non-grafted posterior maxilla? MEDLINE, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness were searched for articles published through April 2003. Hand searches were performed on Clinical Oral Implants Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, and the International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry and the bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles. In addition, researchers, journal editors, and industry sources were contacted to see if pertinent unpublished data that had been accepted for publication were available. Human studies with a minimum of 20 interventions, a minimum follow-up period of 1-year loading, an outcome measurement of implant survival, and published in English, regardless of the evidence level, were considered. Studies involving multiple simultaneous interventions (e.g., simultaneous ridge augmentation) and studies with missing data that could not be supplied by the study authors were excluded. Where adequate data were available, subgroups of dissimilar interventions (e.g., surgical techniques, graft materials, implant surfaces, membranes) were isolated and subjected to meta-regression, a form of meta-analysis. 1. Forty-three studies, 3 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), 5 controlled trials (CTs), 12 case series (CS), and 23 retrospective analyses (RA) were identified. Thirty-four were lateral window interventions, 5 were osteotome interventions, 2 were localized management of the sinus floor, and 2 involved the crestal core technique. 2. Meta-regression was performed to determine the effect of the variables of block versus particulate grafting techniques, implant surface, graft material, and the use of a membrane over the lateral window. 3. The survival rate of implants placed in sinuses augmented with the lateral window technique varied between 61.7% and 100%, with an average survival rate of 91.8%. For lateral window technique: 4. Implant survival rates reported in this systematic review compare favorably to reported survival rates for implants placed in the non-grafted posterior maxilla. 5. Rough-surfaced implants have a higher survival rate than machine-surfaced implants when placed in grafted sinuses. 6. Implants placed in sinuses augmented with particulate grafts show a higher survival rate than those placed in sinuses augmented with block grafts. 7. Implant survival rates were higher when a membrane was placed over the lateral window. 8. The utilization of grafts consisting of 100% autogenous bone or the inclusion of autogenous bone as a component of a composite graft did not affect implant survival. 9. There was no statistical difference between the covariates of simultaneous versus delayed implant placement, types of rough-surfaced implants, length of follow-up, year of publication, and the evidence level of the study. Insufficient data were present to statistically evaluate the effects of smoking, residual crestal bone height, screw versus press-fit implant design, or the effect of implant surface micromorphology other than machined versus rough surfaces. There are insufficient data to recommend the use of platelet-rich plasma in sinus graft surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2023
                20 February 2023
                : 2023
                : 9144661
                Affiliations
                1Private Practice, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
                2Federal University of Pelotas, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
                3Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
                4ILAPEO College, Department of Post-Graduation, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Fu-Ming Tsai

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5941-5356
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6889-7238
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7661-703X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7717-8398
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3924-7743
                Article
                10.1155/2023/9144661
                9970713
                36860810
                e3eacc44-3204-4dd7-8490-f3d5c08a798d
                Copyright © 2023 Vanessa Helena Jamcoski et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 July 2022
                : 24 January 2023
                : 31 January 2023
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article