Transcrestal sinus floor augmentation with immediate implant placement applied in three types of fresh extraction sockets: A clinical prospective study with 1-year follow-up

Comparison of sinusitis rate after sinus lift procedure and zygomatic implant surgery: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the reported sinusitis occurrence after the sinus lift procedure and zygomatic implant placement.

METHODS

This meta-analysis has been registered at PROSPERO. Studies were searched on six databases. Two authors screened titles and abstracts and fully analyzed the studies against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The RoB 2.0 and the ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. The random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The prevalence of sinusitis was calculated based on the total of patients. Subgroup analysis was performed by sinus lift or zygomatic implant surgery technique.

RESULTS

The search identified 2419 references. After applying the inclusion criteria, 18 sinus lift and 9 zygomatic implant placement studies were considered eligible. The pooled prevalence of sinusitis after sinus lift procedure was 1.11% (95% CI 0.30-2.28). The prevalence after zygomatic implant placement was 3.76% (95% CI 0.12-10.29). In the subgroup analysis, the lateral window approach showed a prevalence of sinusitis of 1.35% (95% CI 0.34-2.8), the transcrestal technique of 0.00% (95% CI 0.00-3.18), and the SALSA technique of 1.20% (95% CI 0.00-5.10). Regarding the techniques for zygomatic implant placement, the sinus slot technique showed a prevalence of 21.62% (95% CI 9.62-36.52) and the intrasinus technique of 4.36% (95% CI 0.33-11.08), and the prevalence after the extrasinus technique was 0.00% (95% CI 0.00-1.22).

CONCLUSION

The sinusitis occurrence rate was higher after zygomatic implant placement than after sinus lift procedure and this occurrence was different depending on the used technique.

Effectiveness and complications of transcrestal sinus floor elevation using the cushioned grind-out technique: A retrospective cohort study with up to 7 years of follow-up

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and complications of the cushioned grind-out technique. The primary outcome was endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), while secondary outcomes included the Schneiderian membrane perforation rate and mid- to long-term implant survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we compared the cushioned grind-out technique with the classic osteotome technique, establishing statistical models to assess ESBG, membrane perforation rate and implant survival rate.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients and 340 implants were included. The mean ESBG was 5.31 mm for the cushioned grind-out group and 4.64 mm for the osteotome group. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that the cushioned grind-out technique significantly facilitated ESBG (p = .028). Nineteen preparation sites experienced membrane perforation, with rates of 5.5% and 6.4% for the cushioned grind-out and osteotome groups, respectively. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .920). Additionally, the cumulative survival rate of the implants for 7 years was 95.2% and 91.4%, respectively, with the surgical technique not significantly influencing the results.

CONCLUSIONS

With 6 months to 7 years of post-prosthetic restoration review data, our findings show that the cushioned grind-out technique facilitates a higher ESBG, with no significant difference in membrane perforation or implant failure rate.

Effect of the implant apical exposure and coverage < or ≥ 2 mm bone graft on transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 1- to 7-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage less than or greater than 2 mm on implant survival rate and peri-implant bone and soft tissue remodeling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 264 implants in 180 patients who had undergone transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective cohort study. Radiographic assessment was used to categorize the implants into three groups based on apical implant bone height (ABH): ≤ 0 mm, < 2 mm, or ≥ 2 mm. The implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) during short-term (1-3 years) and mid- to long-term (4-7 years) follow-up, and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the effect of implant apex coverage after TSFE.

RESULTS

Group 1 had 56 implants (ABH ≤ 0 mm), group 2 had 123 implants (ABH > 0 mm, but < 2 mm), and group 3 had 85 implants (ABH ≥ 2 mm). There was no significant difference in the implant survival rate between groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (p = 0.646, p = 0.824, respectively). The MBL during short-term and mid- to long-term follow-up indicated that apex coverage could not be considered a risk factor. Furthermore, apex coverage did not have a significant effect on other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, our study found that implant apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage levels less than or greater than 2 mm, did not significantly affect implant survival, short-term or mid- to long-term MBL, or peri-implant soft tissue outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on 1- to 7-year data, the study suggests that implant apical exposure and coverage levels of less than or greater than 2 mm bone graft are both valid options for TSFE cases.

Efficacy of Two Different Hydrodynamic Sinus Lift Systems for Atraumatic Elevation in Immediate Implant Placement

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of two hydrodynamic sinus lifting procedures and to successfully place immediate implants in maxillary posterior sites that have a compromised native bone as a result of periodontal or endodontic disease.

Patients and Methods

A total of 26 patient sites were enrolled with 13 sites each in the Minimally Invasive Antral Membrane Balloon Elevation (MIAMBE) and Drill Integrated Hydrodynamics for the transcrestal sinus floor elevation (DIHSFE) groups who received transcrestal sinus floor elevation followed by immediate implant placement. Clinical parameters such as sinus membrane perforations, nasal bleeding, postoperative sinusitis, VAS scores at Day-7 for pain and discomfort, primary implant stability and time taken were evaluated.

Results

The DIHSFE had greater sinus membrane perforations and incidence of nasal bleeding when compared with MIAMBE with (p = 0.066) and (p = 0.141). Post-operative sinusitis was evident in both the groups with (p = 0.619). The mean VAS score was statistically significant between both the groups (p ≤ 0.005). The insertion torque values, and mean time taken for surgical procedure was not statistically significant between groups.

Conclusion

The present study highlighted that MIAMBE is superior to DIHSFE in its ability to cause less severe patient morbidities and post-operative complications.

Sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: a systematic review of clinical data

Combining different procedures to reduce the number of surgical sessions and patient discomfort in implant placement and sinus floor elevation has been recommended, and evidence supports good outcomes. The aim of this study was to review the results of clinical studies on sinus floor elevation through extraction sockets and simultaneous immediate posterior implant placement. An electronic search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find English articles published in or before August 2020. A manual search was also performed. Titles, abstracts, and the full-text of the retrieved articles were studied. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria: 6 retrospective case series, 3 case reports, 2 prospective cohort caseseries, 1 prospective case series, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Overall, 306 implants were placed; 2 studies reported implant survival rates of 91.7% and 98.57%. The others either did not report the survival rate or reported 100% survival. Sinus floor elevation through a fresh extraction socket and simultaneous immediate implant placement appears to be a predictable modality with a high success rate. However, proper case selection and the expertise of the clinician play fundamental roles in the success of such complex procedures.

Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis.

Material and methods

Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol.

Results

Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15–0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I² = 15.2%.

Conclusion

In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.

[Immediate implantation following tooth extraction in fresh maxillary molar socket with poor bone quality]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of immediate implantation after tooth extraction in the maxillary molar socket with poor bone quality beneath the sinus.

METHODS

We collected the data from the patients undergoing extraction of maxillary molars with poor bone quality between the sockets and sinuses. Sinus lifting and immediate implant following the extraction were performed simultaneously in these cases, and the primary stability of the implants, wound healing, and changes of the sinus were observed. At 6 months after the operations, the crowns were installed on the implants. The masticatory function was observed, and the growth of the alveolar bones and their changes after the operations were examined using microcomputed tomography (MCT).

RESULTS

We analyzed 32 extraction cases with immediate implantation in the maxillary molar sockets with poor bone quality beneath the sinus. The average age of the patients was 59.8 years, and the length and diameter of the implant ranged from 8.5 to 10 mm and from 4.5 to 5.5 mm, respectively. The torque force of the implants varied from the minimum (in which cases the implants remained fixed after insertion with fingers) to the maximum of 30 N·cm. The postoperative recovery was uneventful in all the cases and no failed or movable implants were found. At 6 months after the operation, none of the patients showed abnormalities in the sinus, and in all the cases the crowns were successfully installed on the implants with good recovery of the masticatory functions. Follow-up of the patients for 12 to 96 months after the operation showed successful immediate implantation in all the cases. After the operation, the changes of the mean alveolar ridge heights on the buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal sides of the patients were 0.8069±0.6253 mm (t=1.2904, P&gt;0.1), 0.5272± 0.3331 mm (t=1.5836, P&gt;0.05), 0.5416±0.4048 mm (t=1.3379, P&gt;0.05), and 0.5172±0.3874 mm (t=1.3351, P&gt;0.05), respectively; the change of the alveolar ridge width was 0.5522±0.4381 mm (t=1.2604, P&gt;0.1) mm. The dimension of the alveolar bone underwent no significant changes after the operation in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implantation in the maxillary extraction socket with a poor bone quality can avoid damages to the sinus and achieve good outcomes with such advantages of less trauma, full use of the innate gingiva and alveolar ridge, and well preserved morphology of the alveolar ridge as compared with delayed implantation.