Sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach

被引:109
作者
Pjetursson, Bjarni E.
Lang, Niklaus P.
机构
关键词
MAXILLARY SINUS; OSTEOTOME TECHNIQUE; DENTAL IMPLANTS; CLINICAL REPORT; LOCALIZED MANAGEMENT; POSTERIOR MAXILLA; LATERAL APPROACH; PART II; PLACEMENT; BONE;
D O I
10.1111/prd.12043
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
A transalveolar approach for sinus floor elevation with subsequent placement of dental implants was first suggested by Tatum in 1986. In 1994, Summers described a different transalveolar approach using a set of tapered osteotomes with increasing diameters. The transalveolar approach of sinus floor elevation, also referred to as 'osteotome sinus floor elevation', the 'Summers technique' or the 'Crestal approach', may be considered as being more conservative and less invasive than the conventional lateral window approach. This is reflected by the fact that more than nine out of 10 patients who experienced the surgical procedure would be willing to undergo it again. The main indication for transalveolar sinus floor elevation is reduced residual bone height, which does not allow standard implant placement. Contraindications for transalveolar sinus floor elevation may be intra-oral, local or medical. The surgical approach utilized over the last two decades is the technique described by Summers, with or without minor modifications. The surgical care after implant placement using the osteotome technique is similar to the surgical care after standard implant placement. The patients are usually advised to take antibiotic prophylaxis and to utilize antiseptic rinses. The main complications reported after performing a transalveolar sinus floor elevation were perforation of the Schneiderian membrane in 3.8% of patients and postoperative infections in 0.8% of patients. Other complications reported were postoperative hemorrhage, nasal bleeding, blocked nose, hematomas and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Whether it is necessary to use grafting material to maintain space for new bone formation after elevating the sinus membrane utilizing the osteotome technique is still controversial. Positive outcomes have been reported with and without using grafting material. A prospective study, evaluating both approaches, concluded that significantly more bone gain was seen when grafting material was used (4.1 mm mean bone gain compared with 1.7 mm when no grafting material was utilized). In a systematic review, including 19 studies reporting on 4388 implants inserted using the transalveolar sinus floor elevation technique, the 3-year implant survival rate was 92.8% (95% confidence interval: 87.4-96.0%). Furthermore, a subject-based analysis of the same material revealed an annual failure rate of 3.7%. Hence, one in 10 subjects experienced implant loss over 3 years. Several of the included studies demonstrated that transalveolar sinus floor elevation was most predictable when the residual alveolar bone height was ≥ 5 mm and the sinus floor anatomy was relatively flat. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:59 / 71
页数:13
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces - An experimental study in the dog [J].
Abrahamsson, I ;
Berglundh, T ;
Linder, E ;
Lang, NP ;
Lindhe, J .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2004, 15 (04) :381-392
[2]  
BOYNE PJ, 1980, J ORAL SURG, V38, P613
[3]  
BOYNE PJ, 1993, J LONG-TERM EFF MED, V3, P143
[4]  
Bruschi GB, 1998, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V13, P219
[5]  
Cavicchia F, 2001, INT J PERIODONT REST, V21, P475
[6]   An 8-year retrospective study: 1,100 patients receiving 1,557 implants using the minimally invasive hydraulic sinus condensing technique [J].
Chen, L ;
Cha, J .
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2005, 76 (03) :482-491
[7]  
Coatoam G W, 1997, J Oral Implantol, V23, P117
[8]  
Cosci F, 2000, Implant Dent, V9, P363, DOI 10.1097/00008505-200009040-00014
[9]  
Deporter DA, 2005, INT J PERIODONT REST, V25, P585
[10]   Endoscopically controlled sinus floor augmentation - A preliminary report [J].
Engelke, W ;
Deckwer, I .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 1997, 8 (06) :527-531