Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

E20

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 25

  • pg 1
									A 5-year Follow-up for Implant Placement Immediately Following the Lateral

    Approach of the Trap Door Window Procedure to Create a Maxillary Sinus

             Lift Without Bone Grafting of 80 Implants in 44 Patients

I-Ching Lin*, Anne Margaret Gonzalez*, Hsin-Ju Chang**, Shou-Yen Kao◎, Ta-Wei Chen#




* I-Ching Lin, DDS & Anne Margaret Gonzalez, DDS, MS, Residents, Oral and Maxillofacial


Surgery, Dept. of Stomatology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital (VGH), Taipei, Taiwan.


** Hsin-Ju Chang, DDS, Attending Dr., Prosthodontic Dentistry, Kaoshiung-VGH

◎
    Shou-Yen Kao, DDS, MHA, DMSc, Professor and Head, Department of Stomatology, Taipei-

VGH; School of Dentistry, National Yang-Ming University (NYMU), Taipei, Taiwan.

#
    Ta-Wei Chen, DDS, Clinical professor, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of


Stomatology, Taipei- VGH; School of Dentistry, NYMU, Taipei, Taiwan.




Correspondence and reprint request to Dr. Ta-Wei Chen, (e-mail: 52599881990@yahoo.com.tw)

& Dr. Shou-Yen Kao, (e-mail: sykao@vghtpe.gov.tw) No. 201, Sec. II, Shih-Pai Road, Oral and


Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Stomatology, Taipei-VGH, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.


Tel: 886-2-28757013, Fax: 886-2-28742375


Running title: Immediate implant placement with lateral approach sinus lift without graft

Keywords: Graft, Implant, Lateral approach, Sinus lift, Survival


                                                                                            1
A 5-year Follow-up for Implant Placement Immediately Following the Lateral Approach of the


Trap Door Window Procedure to Create a Maxillary Sinus Lift Without Bone Grafting of 80


Implants in 44 Patients


Abstract

Purpose: The study was to evaluate the 5-year status of immediately placed implants subjected

to a maxillary sinus lift without graft.


Materials and Methods: Eighty implants were placed in 44 patients from 2004 to 2005. A

minimum of 3-mm retained bone height (RBH) was required. All implants were placed with


sinus lifting through a lateral approach by the trap-door, open-window method without


placement of any graft. Patients underwent oral hygiene instruction, periodontal charting, yearly


panoramic radiographs, and cone beam computed tomographic (CT) scan during the regular


follow-up. The gained bone height (GBH) in maxillary sinus, peri-implant sulcus depth and


marginal bone loss were statistically analyzed by student t-test. The implant survival was defined


when the prosthesis had been delivered without infection, pain, or mobility.


Results: Forty-four patients (16 males, 18 females) having an average age of 58 years old, with a

total of 80 fixtures were followed for 5 years after prosthesis delivery. No patients developed


sinusitis or other complications leading to loss of implant. The average RBH was 5.06±1.51 mm


and the average endosinus implant length was 7.77±1.7 mm. The 2-year and 5-year survival rates

of fixtures were both 100%. The GBH in sinus ranged from 3 to 12 mm with an average of


                                                                                                2
7.24±1.83 mm at 2-year follow-up & 7.44±1.94 mm at 5-year follow-up (P>0.05). The average


peri-implant sulcus depths were 2.5±0.4 mm at 2-year follow-up & 3.1±0.5 mm at 5-year follow-


up (p<0.05). The mean peri-implant marginal bone loss was 1.3±0.3 mm at 2-year and 2.1±0.5


mm at 5-year follow-up (p<0.05).


Conclusions: Endosinus new bone formation was confirmed with a good survival of implants

with maxillary sinus lift by the lateral approach without graft was observed at the 5-year follow-


up. Attention should still be focused on the oral hygiene maintenance to warrant the stability of


the peri-implant gingival health.




Keywords: graft, implant, lateral approach, maxillary sinus, survival




                                                                                                3
Introduction

       Pneumatization of maxillary sinus and resorption of alveolar ridge after loss of premolars


and molars often lead to insufficient bony support for implant placement over atrophic posterior


maxilla. Boyne first described the elevation of maxillary sinus floor for bone grafting in the


severely resorbed maxilla. He further reported on sinus augmentation using autogenous iliac


bone chips placed via lateral approach at the first stage surgery followed by the second stage


wherein blade type implants were placed at the augmented area to support fixed or removable


prosthesis.1-2 The lateral approach of maxillary sinus augmentation is the classic and more


commonly performed technique for the past 30 years and is done by creating a lateral trap-door


window for the elevation of the sinus membrane and grafting with autogenous bone or various


alloplastic bone graft substitutes.1-2 In 2008, Pjetursson BE et al reported a 90.1% 3-year implant


survival rate after lateral approach sinus augmentation through a meta-analysis on 48 studies


with 12020 implants in 4000 patients.1-2 The other method, internal sinus membrane lifting with


osteotome, also known as transalveolar technique, was first described by Summers in 1994.3-4


Various filling materials have been used for sinus augmentation, including autografts, xenografts,


allografts and synthetic bone grafts.5-8 Tan WC et al similarly reported in 2008 a 92.8% 3-year


implant survival rate after transalveolar sinus augmentation on 19 studies with 4388 implants in


2830 patients.9 The transalveolar technique may be considered easier and less invasive and was

reported to have a lower sinus perforation rate than the lateral approach. Yet, the lateral approach


                                                                                                  4
seems to provide a more direct vision of any sinus perforation and a higher capacity to receive


bone grafts or substitutes than the transalveolar procedure. While both techniques demonstrated


their own unique advantages, the guidelines for choice of grafts in these two approaches based


on the retained bone height have been fully discussed in a sinus consensus conference.10 On the


other hand, experimental data interestingly demonstrated a potential of sinus bone regeneration


by membrane elevation without placing any bone graft.11-13 Clinical evidence of sinus floor


elevation with simultaneous implant placement without any graft was first described by Bruschi


et al in 1998.15 A limited period of follow-up for no more than 2 years were consequently


reported in several articles from 2004 to 2007.13-19 Nedir further reported a 3-year prospective


study in his follow-up using osteotome technique without graft in 2009.19 As far as we reviewed,


there was no report of a longer period of case series in this regard. We continued to prospectively


observe our cases extended from our previously published cohort study19 in an attempt to help


formulate successful strategies for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. The present study was


undertaken to measure the height of new bone formation in the maxillary sinus through the use


of conventional panoramic films assisted by cone bean computerized tomography (CT) in


patients whose implants were inserted into the maxillary sinus without additional grafting


material after sinus membrane elevation.


Materials & Methods




                                                                                                 5
- Patients & pre-surgical evaluation -

       Forty-four patients who were treated with implant rehabilitation as well as sinus lifting


without graft from 2004 to 2005, were prospectively followed and evaluated for 5 years after


prosthesis delivery. All patients were physically healthy and free of any systemic problems that


could interfere with the wound healing process. They also denied having any medical history of


diseases contraindicated for sinus or implant surgery. In this study, inclusion criteria were as


follows: 1. Patients required implant treatment in the posterior maxilla. 2. Primary stability of the


implant was obtained. 3. There were no signs of sinusitis before the surgery. Study models of the


patients were transferred to articulators for analysis and fabrication of surgical stents for guiding


the position and axis of implant fixtures. Patients were informed of the potential unfavorable


conditions for implant rehabilitation. They were given necessary information about the


procedure, including its prognosis, need for regular radiographs in follow-ups, potential hazards


and complications after the diagnosis. A treatment plan was then decided.


- Surgery -

       The operations were carried out with the patients under either local or general anesthesia.


Prophylactic antibiotics (10 mg dexamethasone, 3,000,000 U crystal penicillin and 80 mg


gentamicin intravenously, 30 minutes prior to surgery or 2 g amoxicillin or 600 mg clindamycin,


1 hour prior to surgery) were given. A surgical stent was prepared and transferred from a

simulated augmented ridge from the study model of the patient’s maxilla. Under local anesthesia,


                                                                                                   6
full-thickness flaps were elevated carefully following a mid-crestal incision. A mesiovertical


releasing incision was made as necessary. The sharp and thin alveolar ridge and the lateral wall


of the maxillary sinus were exposed. Extreme care was taken to radically elevate the sinus


membrane from the trap-door window opened by using an electric-motor drill with adequate


water-cooling. The floor, lateral wall and posterior wall of the sinus membrane were detached,


pushed upward and medially allowing the placement of dental implants into the bone chamber.


The implant fixture was positioned from the crestal bone and extended into the space with a


primary stabilization provided by the retained alveolar bone (minimal initial bone height was 3


mm and shortest implant length was 12 mm). Two 1-stage implant systems (ITI; Straumann,


Waldenburg, Switzerland, and SwissPlus; Centerpulse Dental, Carlsbad, CA) were used in


patients with focal edentulous areas. A 2-stage implant system (Friate-2; Friadent GmbH,


Mannheim, Germany) was used for submerged healing beneath the gingiva after the implant was


inserted. Instead of placing autogenous bone or allogeneic bone substitute into the sinus space as


fillers, the space was created by the elevation of sinus membrane with or without an attached


maxillary cortical plate, which was then supported by the fixture. No membrane was used to


cover the lateral wall. For 1-stage implant, the healing abutment ontop of the fixture was exposed


(Fig 1. A-D). The wound was further closed with 4-O Vicryl suture and was covered by


periodontal dressing material (Coe-Pack; Coe Laboratories Inc, Chicago, IL). Six months after

surgery, the second-stage operation was carried out to expose the implanted 2-stage system


                                                                                                 7
fixtures. A labially positioned palatal flap was used to ensure sufficient keratinized gingiva at the


buccal side of the fixture. A minimum of 1 month was required for the healing of the flap and


peri-implant tissues. The referring prosthodontists carried out the prosthetic rehabilitation of both


1-stage and 2-stage systems at 7 to 8 months and with initial force loading at about 9 months


after sinus lifting-combined implant surgery (Fig. 2A-D). All patients received a strict and


periodic plaque control program to maintain peri-implant tissue health.20


- Analysis of radiographs-

       Preoperative, 6-month and annual postoperative panoramic radiographs were taken in all


cases (Fig. 2A-D). A single radiographic unit was used to obtain all panoramic films at


standardized parameters, which were determined by the manufacturer to minimize possible


distortions. The pre-operative metal rod and the length of the implant were used to calibrate the


amount of magnification for each radiograph. A cone beam computed tomographic (CT) scan or


conventional CT scan taken at 2-3 year follow-up was used to observe the regeneration of bone


after maxillary sinus lifting procedure (Fig. 2E-G).16, 21-23 Panoramic radiographs at 2- & 5-year


follow-ups were used for calculation and analysis (Fig. 3). The retained bone height (RBH) was


measured at 1 mm adjacent to the implants, from the maxillary sinus floor to the edentulous


ridge crest. The amount of gained bone height (GBH) and the remodeling bone height were then


calculated from these readings (Fig. 4).21 The outcome of the implant was defined as “survival”




                                                                                                   8
accordingly when the prosthesis was still functioning by the implant support with no signs of


continued pain, uncontrolled peri-implant tissue infection.


Results

       Forty-four patients including 18 females and 26 males with a mean age of 58.1±12.3


years, ranging from 25 to 86 years of age, were analyzed in this cohort study. A total of 80


implant fixtures that were immediately placed through the lateral approach of the trap-door


window procedure to create a maxillary sinus lift without bone grafting from 2004 to 2005 were


followed for more than 5 years after prosthesis delivery. 15 patients received one implant, 22


patients received two implants, and 7 patients received three implants. All implants were 12 to


15 mm in length and protruded more than 4 mm (range 4-11mm) into the sinus cavity. The


surgical sites were upper first molar region (no=37, 46%), followed by upper second molar


(no=27, 34%) and premolar regions (no=16, 20%) respectively. None of the patients developed


sinusitis or other complications leading to loss of an implant subsequent to performance of the


sinus lifting-combined immediate implant surgery. All 80 fixtures healed well, no uncontrolled


infection or implant mobility was observed on initiation of loading force from the prosthetic


components from 9 months after implant surgery to a minimum of post-delivery 5-year follow-


up. The initial RBH between the edentulous ridge crest and the sinus floor was 3 to 8 mm with


an average of 5.06±1.51 mm. The average endosinus implant length was 7.771.69 mm. The

GBH in the sinus ranged from 3 to 12 mm with an average of 7.24±1.83 mm at 2-year-period


                                                                                              9
observation and an average of 7.44±1.94 mm at 5-year-period observation (P>0.05). The peri-


implant soft tissue was evaluated during the course of the study using visual examination and


measurement of peri-implant sulcus depth. With the periodic plaque control program, the peri-


implant soft tissue health can be effectively maintained in our patients. Visual examination


revealed no obvious plaque accumulation or soft tissue inflammation around most implants.


Averages of peri-implant sulcus depth at 2-year and 5-year follow-ups were 2.5±0.4 mm and


3.1±0.5 mm (p<0.05), and there was no evidence of bleeding on probing in most of implant sites.


The mean peri-implant marginal bone loss was 1.3±0.3 mm at 2-year and 2.1±0.5 mm at 5-year


follow-up (p<0.05). 18 cases had reversible peri-implant mucositis and were managed by


endorsed oral hygiene instruction (OHI) program to maintain peri-implant tissue health. 3 cases


with 8 fixtures developed peri-implantitis with angular bony destruction more than 3 mm during


the follow-up (Fig. 3); a flap surgery for maintenance of peri-implant tissue health was


performed in these 3 cases. The principles of the Cumulative Interceptive Supportive Therapy


(CIST) protocol were employed in the treatments.24 Through a minimum follow-up of 5 years in


44 patients with 80 fixtures, the fixture survival was 100% and the function and stability of these


fixtures was judged to be good (Table 1).


Discussion

       While clinical interests still focused on abundant covariates regarding the success of sinus

lifting for dental implants,9, 25 the observation of bone regeneration in the sealed bone chamber in


                                                                                                 10
several animal studies had already highlighted a new clue to the increase of bone by sinus lifting.


Earlier report by Boyne PJ in 1993 using an animal model in monkeys revealed that implants


protruding into the maxillary sinus following elevation of the sinus membrane without grafting


material exhibited spontaneous bone formation below the sinus membrane.11 At the same time,


Linde et al reported using an osteopromotive membrane technique to successfully create new


bone without graft on the calvarium of rats and demonstrated that the osteogenesis depends on


the stiffness of membrane for space maintenance and healing time.12 A comparative


histomorphometric observation by Haas et al in an animal study in sheep further demonstrated


that the new bone formation after membrane elevation without graft could be from the


periosteum at the cervical part of implant and bone proper from other part of bone chamber with


a more bone-implant contact in a longer time of healing.13


   The experimental results were further evidenced by a series of clinical observations. Winter


first used osteotome technique for local management of posterior maxillary sinus membrane with


simultaneous implant without graft in 58 implants of 34 patients with a mean RBH of 2.87 mm


and reported a success rate of 91.4% in a period of 22 months follow-up.26 Lundgren S et al first


used lateral approach in his 12 months short-term observation after functional loading in 10


patients for 12 maxillary sinus floor augmentations of 19 implants with lengths of 10-15 mm and


a longer mean RBH of 7 mm (range, 4-10 mm) and reported that there is a great potential for

bone formation in the maxillary sinus without the use of additional bone grafts or bone


                                                                                                11
substitutes. The excluded compartment created by the elevated sinus membrane, implants, and


replaceable bone window allowed bone formation according to the principle of guided tissue


regeneration.15 In 2007, at the same time that Thor A et al27 reported bone formation at the


maxillary sinus floor following simultaneous elevation of the mucosal lining and implant


installation without graft material in 20 patients with 44 Astra Tech implants, we also reported a


successful implant placement immediately after the lateral approach trap-door window procedure


to create a maxillary sinus lift without bone grafting in a 2-year observation of 47 implants in 33


patients.18 Creation of the sinus space with the trap-door, open window method results in an


enclosed chamber walled by the periosteum on the flap side laterally, the sinus membrane


periosteum with a cortical plate superiorly, and the maxillary bone in other aspects. The dental


implant provides a vertical stop for the upwardly positioned cortical bone on the elevated


membrane such that the space is maintained with clotted blood. A 3-year observation report


using osteotome sinus floor elevation technique without grafting material was recently proposed


by Nedir R et al.19 Jeong et al recently evaluated 9 patients with a total of 10 implants (10-12 mm)


that were inserted into the maxillary sinus 4-6 mm after sinus membrane elevation without bone


grafting. The mean endosinus bone gain was 3.5 mm and 2-year postoperative CT images


showed tent-like bone formation around the implants in their short-term clinical follow-up.28 The


above limited number of articles all concluded that elevation of the sinus membrane without the

addition of a bone grafting material still led to a satisfactory result. Findings of these reports


                                                                                                12
regarding the immediate placement of implants without the use of autogenous bone grafts or


other alloplastic bone substitute materials challenge the utility of the conventional approach


involving placement of filling materials into a sinus space created either by the trap-door window


method or by osteotome sinus floor elevation. 18


       We further prospectively conducted this long-term 5-year observation of implants in


patients subjected to a maxillary sinus lift and immediate implant placement without bone


grafting through a lateral trap-door window procedure. Through a minimum follow-up of 5 years


in 44 patients with 80 fixtures, the fixture survival was 100% and the function and stability of


these fixtures was judged to be good. Additionally, sinus elevation from the lateral approach


ensured a highly tented sinus membrane and space for bone regeneration maintained by the


synchronously placed implant. It should be noted that this approach differs from that involving


the greenstick fracture created with the osteotome technique wherein undetected perforation of


the sinus membrane might create a potential problem.


       Findings of various reports disagree greatly with regards to the minimal bone height of


the residual ridge needed for sinus lifting; however, in this study, an average of 5 mm (range 3-8


mm) RBH below the lowest part of the sinus floor was present in all cases to provide primary


stability of the implant fixtures. Primary stabilization is of particular importance in implants


placed in the lifted sinus since any constant micromovement of the implant would invite

untoward or complicated inflammation which may lead to a fibrous healing around the implant


                                                                                               13
resulting to a failure in osseointegration. While previous articles suggested the importance of


maintaining the tented membrane by the implant with grafts to allow an appropriate period of 9-


12 months for bone regeneration and a slightly gradual decrease of GBH due to remodeling


around the apex of implants.2,27-29 Our analysis revealed there were no significant changes on the


GBH between 2-year (7.24±1.83 mm) and 5-year (7.44±1.94 mm) follow-ups. This non-


significant increase did not conflict with a slight decrease with time in GBH mentioned in other


articles.22-24, 27-29 Although a primary stability of all our implants was provided by the retained


bone support during operation, an initial force loading in these cases was not conducted until 9


months after surgery to wait for bone formation around implants. This denotes a valued potential


that our procedure using a radical dissection for lifting the sinus membrane to expose the


endosinus bony wall from the lateral to the posterior and medial endosinus compartment may


provide an advantageous environment for bone regeneration.34,35


       Compared with a mean 3-year implant survival rate of 90.1% in a systematic review of


implants in combination with sinus floor elevation by lateral approach with inclusion of various


graft materials,15, 29-30 a good survival of 100% in our case series conceivably evidenced the


success of the procedure to gain new bone formation with only membrane elevation in the sinus.


The bone formation was indirectly demonstrated in the post-operative radiographic images of


panoramic films and cone beam CT. While our study revealed no significant difference in the

GBH between 2-year and 5-year follow-ups, significant differences (p<0.05) between results at


                                                                                                14
2-year and 5-year follow-ups in the average peri-implant sulcus depths (2.6±0.4 mm vs 3.1±0.5


mm) and the mean peri-implant marginal bone loss (1.3±0.3 mm vs 2.1±0.5 mm) were observed.


The significant differences should be attributed to several cases who developed reversible peri-


implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. This further highlights the importance of the periodic


plaque control program to effectively maintain peri-implant soft tissue health in cases.


Conclusion

       Long-term follow-up confirmed the success of the procedure of elevation of the sinus


membrane and simultaneous placement of implants. This study shows that there is great potential


for new bone formation in the maxillary sinus without the use of additional bone grafts. However,


strict oral hygiene was significant in the maintenance of peri-implant health.


Acknowledgement: This study was supported by grants VGH99C1-093, V99S1-004 and

V99E1-006, Taipei-VGH, Taipei, ROC. We appreciate for the contribution from Professor Yu-


Lin Lai, Chair of Periodontics Division, Taipei-VGH in support to this clinical study.


Correspondence and reprint refer to Dr. Ta-Wei Chen, (e-mail: 52599881990@yahoo.com.tw)

& Dr. Shou-Yen Kao, (e-mail: sykao@vghtpe.gov.tw) No. 201, Sec. II, Shih-Pai Road, Oral and


Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Stomatoloy, Taipei-VGH, Taipei, Taiwan. Tel: 886-2-


28757013, Fax: 886-2-28742375



References

1.   Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and
     bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38(8):613-6..
                                                                                              15
2.   Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus
     floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J
     Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl):216-40.
3.   Tatum H, Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am
     1986;30:207-29.
4.   Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique.
     Compendium 1994;15:152, 54-6, 58.
5.   Summers RB. The osteotome technique: Part 3--Less invasive methods of elevating the
     sinus floor. Compendium 1994;15:698, 700, 02-4.
6.   Rosen PS, Summers R, Mellado JR, Salkin LM, Shanaman RH, Marks MH, et al. The bone-
     added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique: multicenter retrospective report of
     consecutively treated patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 1999;14:853-8.
7.   Deporter D, Todescan R, Caudry S. Simplifying management of the posterior maxilla using
     short, porous-surfaced dental implants and simultaneous indirect sinus elevation. Int J
     Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:476-85.
8.   Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome
     sinus floor elevation: a 12-year life-table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI
     implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:194-205.
9.   Maiorana C, Sigurta D, Mirandola A, Garlini G, Santoro F. Sinus elevation with alloplasts
     or xenogenic materials and implants: an up-to-4-year clinical and radiologic follow-up. Int J
     Oral Maxillofac Impl 2006;21:426-32.
10. Tan WC, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the success of sinus
    floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation.
    Part II: transalveolar technique. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl):241-54.
11. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference
    of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 1998;13 Suppl:11-45.
12. Boyne PJ. Analysis of performance of root-form endosseous implants placed in the
    maxillary sinus. J Long Term Eff Med Impl 1993;3:143-59.
13. Linde A, Thoren C, Dahlin C, Sandberg E. Creation of new bone by an osteopromotive
    membrane technique: an experimental study in rats. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:892-7.
14. Haas R, Donath K, Fodinger M, Watzek G. Bovine hydroxyapatite for maxillary sinus
    grafting: comparative histomorphometric findings in sheep. Clin Oral Impl Res 1998;9:107-
    16.
15. Bruschi GB, Scipioni A, Calesini G, Bruschi E. Localized management of sinus floor with
    simultaneous implant placement: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 1998;13:219-
    26.
16. Lundgren S, Andersson S, Gualini F, Sennerby L. Bone reformation with sinus membrane
    elevation: a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Clin Impl Dent
    Relat Res 2004;6:165-73.
                                                                                                 16
17. Leblebicioglu B, Ersanli S, Karabuda C, Tosun T, Gokdeniz H. Radiographic evaluation of
    dental implants placed using an osteotome technique. J Periodontol 2005;76:385-90.
18. Ellegaard B, Baelum V, Kolsen-Petersen J. Non-grafted sinus implants in periodontally
    compromised patients: a time-to-event analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:156-64.
19. Chen TW, Chang HS, Leung KW, Lai YL, Kao SY. Implant placement immediately after
    the lateral approach of the trap door window procedure to create a maxillary sinus lift
    without bone grafting: a 2-year retrospective evaluation of 47 implants in 33 patients. J Oral
    Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2324-8.
20. Nedir R, Bischof M, Vazquez L, Nurdin N, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP. Osteotome
    sinus floor elevation technique without grafting material: 3-year results of a prospective
    pilot study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2009;20:701-7.
21. Buchmann R, Khoury F, Faust C, Lange DE. Peri-implant conditions in periodontally
    compromised patients following maxillary sinus augmentation. A long-term post-therapy
    trial. Clin Oral Impl Res 1999;10:103-10.
22. Hallman M, Hedin M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S. A prospective 1-year clinical and
    radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine
    hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:277-84; discussion
    85-6.
23. Hatano N, Shimizu Y, Ooya K. A clinical long-term radiographic evaluation of graft height
    changes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a 2:1 autogenous bone/xenograft
    mixture and simultaneous placement of dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:339-45.
24. Zijderveld SA, Schulten EA, Aartman IH, ten Bruggenkate CM. Long-term changes in graft
    height after maxillary sinus floor elevation with different grafting materials: radiographic
    evaluation with a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. Clin Oral Impl Res 2009;20:691-700.
25. Lang NP, Wilson TG, Corbet EF. Biological complications with dental implants: their
    prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Clin Oral Impl Res 2000;11:146-55.
26. van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Krekeler G, Tuinzing DB. Sinusfloor elevation and
    grafting with autogenous iliac crest bone. Clin Oral Impl Res 1998;9:429-35.
27. Geurs NC, Wang IC, Shulman LB, Jeffcoat MK. Retrospective radiographic analysis of
    sinus graft and implant placement procedures from the Academy of Osseointegration
      Consensus Conference on Sinus Grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001;21:517-23.
28.   Velich N, Nemeth Z, Toth C, Szabo G. Long-term results with different bone substitutes
      used for sinus floor elevation. J Craniofac Surg 2004;15:38-41.
29.   Garofalo GS. Autogenous, allogenetic and xenogenetic grafts for maxillary sinus elevation:
      literature review, current status and prospects. Minerva Stomatol 2007;56:373-92.
30.   Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar
      ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral
      Maxillofac Impl 2009;24 Suppl:218-36.
31.   Winter AA, Pollack AS, Odrich RB. Placement of implants in the severely atrophic
                                                                                                17
     posterior maxilla using localized management of the sinus floor: A preliminary study. Int J
     Oral Maxillofac Impl 2002;17:687-95.
32. Thor A, Sennerby L, Hirsch JM, Rasmusson L. Bone formation at the maxillary sinus floor
    following simultaneous elevation of the mucosal lining and implant installation without
    graft material: an evaluation of 20 patients treated with 44 Astra Tech implants. J Oral
    Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(7 Suppl 1):64-72.
33. Jeong SM, Choi BH, Li J, Xuan F. A retrospective study of the effects of sinus membrane
    elevation on bone formation around implants placed in the maxillary sinus cavity. Oral
    Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:364-8.
34. Busenlechner D, Huber CD, Vasak C, Dobsak A, Gruber R, Watzek G. Sinus augmentation
    analysis revised: the gradient of graft consolidation. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2009;20:1078-83
35. Avila G, Wang HL, Galindo-Moreno P, Misch CE, Bagramian RA, Rudek I, et al. The
    influence of the bucco-palatal distance on sinus augmentation outcomes. J Periodontol;
    2010;81:1041-50.




Table 1. Clinical features of 80 implant fixtures in 44 patients
Average age (year)                                58.1±12.3
Gender
 Male                                             26
 Female                                           18
Classification of implant location
 Premolars                                        16
 First molar                                      37
 Second molar                                     27
Length of fixtures (mm)
 12                                               35
 13                                               33
 14                                               3
 15                                               9




                                                                                               18
Table 2. Analysis of 80 implant fixtures at 2- & 5-year follow-ups
Average RBH (mm), range 3-8mm                   5.06±1.51
Average endosinus implant length (mm)           7.771.69
GBH at 2-year follow-up (mm)                    7.24±1.83
GBH at 5-year follow-up (mm)                    7.44±1.94
2-year peri-implant sulcus depth (mm)           2.5±0.4
5-year peri-implant sulcus depth (mm)           3.1±0.5*
2-year peri-implant marginal bone loss (mm)     1.3±0.3
5-year peri-implant marginal bone loss (mm)     2.1±0.5*

* Significant difference (p<0.05) between 2-year and 5-year follow-ups




Figure 1



                                                                         19
           B




 A         C




 D         E   F   G


Figure 2




                       20
Figure 3




           21
Figure 4




           22
Legends of Figures

Figure 1. This panel demonstrated the frontal sections of the right maxillary atrophic edentulous

ridge with a low maxillary sinus floor, prepared for a 1-stage implant surgery to combine with


sinus membrane lifting procedure. A. A full-thickness muco-periosteal flap was raised following

a mid-crestal incision. A mesiovertical releasing incision was made in convenience to expose the


buccal cortical plate at the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus. The trap-door bone window,


locating above the retained alveolar bone, was created by an electric-motor drill with adequate


water-cooling. B. Extreme care should be taken to radically elevate the sinus membrane from the


lateral wall, floor to the posterior and medial walls of the sinus cavity. C. The implant fixture

was positioned from the crestal bone and extended into the space with a primary stabilization


provided by the retained alveolar bone. The tented space below the elevated sinus membrane


allowing for bone regeneration is maintained or supported by the fixture tip within the maxillary


sinus. D. Without placing either autogenous bone or allogeneic bone substitutes into the sinus

space as fillers, the wound was further closed with 4-O Vicryl suture. No membrane was used to


cover the lateral bone window underneath the mucoperiosteal flap. The healing abutment ontop


of the 1-stage implant fixture was exposed.


Figure 2. A 50-year-old male patient presenting a low sinus floor & edentulous ridge in the right


maxilla was prepared for receiving three 2-stage implants. A. Preoperative panoramic radiograph

showed a severely atrophic maxilla with missing of 2nd premolar, 1st & 2nd molars. Arrows


                                                                                              23
indicated the positions of the retained alveolar bone between the sinus floor and the edentulous


ridge crest. B. A lateral approach of the trap-door window procedure was performed to create a

maxillary sinus lift without bone grafting over right posterior maxilla, with simultaneous


placement of 3 implants. C. Implants and bone window was covered by new bone when a labial


positioned palatal flap was raised at 6 months after implant surgery. D. 9 months post-operative

panoramic radiograph showed elevated sinus floor & endosinus new bone around three implants


with temporary restoration on the fixture abutments. Arrows indicated the augmented bone levels


between the lifted sinus floor and ridge crest at 1mm adjacent to apices or necks of implants. E-


G. Cone beam CT at 2-year follow-up showed the endosinus new bone formation around each

implant.


Figure 3. A 55-year-old female patient presenting a low sinus floor & full edentulous ridge in


the right maxilla was prepared for implant surgery. A. Preoperative panoramic radiograph of


showed a severely resorbed alveolar ridge in the right maxilla with low sinus floor. B. 6 months

post-operative panoramic radiograph showed new bone regenerating within the created sinus


space around two implants. C. 2-year post-operative panoramic radiograph showed the obvious

endosinus GBH around implants & a minimum of less than 1 mm peri-implant marginal bone


loss. D. 5-year post-operative panoramic radiograph showed stable endosinus GBH with an

obvious 3-mm peri-implant marginal bone loss around cervical area of implants indicated by

arrows.


                                                                                              24
Figure 4. Schematic drawing of parameters measured from the panoramic radiograph. The


magnification was calibrated based on the length of the implant. A indicating the retained bone

height (RBG) which was defined as the vertical bone height at 1 mm adjacent to the implants,


from the maxillary sinus floor to the edentulous ridge crest. B indicating the gained bone height

(GBH) which was defined as the vertical height at 1 mm adjacent to the implants, between the


original sinus floor and elevated sinus floor. C indicating the remodeling bone height which was

defined as the distance at 1 mm adjacent to the implants, between the apex of the implant and


lifted maxillary sinus floor. B+C was equivalent to the endosinus implant length.




                                                                                              25

								
To top