Peri-implant bone length changes and survival rates of implants penetrating the sinus membrane at the posterior maxilla in patients with limited vertical bone height

Clinical Outcomes of Maxillary Sinus Floor Perforation by Dental Implants and Sinus Membrane Perforation during Sinus Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the clinical outcomes after the perforation of the maxillary sinus by dental implants, or after maxillary sinus membrane perforation during sinus lift procedure. Twenty-nine publications were included. Failure rates of implants in cases where perforation of sinus floor had happened (11 studies) was generally low, and only one case of transient sinusitis was reported. The estimated failure rate of these implants was 2.1% (SE 1.0%, p = 0.035). There were 1817 implants (73 failures) placed in augmented sinuses in which the sinus membrane was perforated and 5043 implants (274 failures) placed in sinuses with no perforated membrane, from 18 studies. The odds of implant failure difference between the groups were not significant (OR 1.347, p = 0.197). log OR of implant failure between perforated and non-perforated membrane groups did not significantly change with the follow-up time (-0.004/month; p = 0.500). In conclusion, implant failure rate is generally low either for implants penetrating in the floor of the maxillary sinus or implants placed in augmented sinuses in which the sinus membrane was perforated. The prevalence of postoperative infection/sinusitis is low, and it may depend either on the dimensions of the perforation or on the anatomical predisposition.

How to avoid intraoperative and postoperative complications in maxillary sinus elevation

Maxillary sinus floor elevation, via the lateral approach, is one of the most predictable bone augmentation procedures performed in implant dentistry. but both intra- and postoperative complications can occur, and some of them are severe. Our aim is as follows: To review the pertinent literature on the topic, especially assessing the risk factors related to complications. To give clinical recommendations to minimize intra- and postoperative complications with the ultimate scope of improving the standard of clinical care and patient safety.

Does the Protrusion of Corticobasal Implants in the Maxillary Sinuses Affect Sinus Health? A Retrospective Study

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the effect of corticobasal implant penetration in the nasal and maxillary sinuses on sinus health and implant survival rate in cases of severely atrophid ridges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on thirty patients with 172 implants who underwent corticobasal implant treatment between 2014 and 2018. Implants were divided into two groups according to the penetration depths (Group A, <4 mm; Group B, 4 mm). Inclusion criteria for the study included: (A) patients with severe maxillary ridge resorption with an immediately loaded corticobasal implant-supported prosthesis that showed implant protrusion inside the maxillary sinus on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT); and (B) patients with a preoperative and postoperative follow-up CBCT scan using the same standard technique and machine. (C) Patients without any history of sinusitis before implant insertion patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recalled for follow-up. The presence of sinus complications was clinically assessed according to the clinical practice guidelines for adult sinusitis of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Radiologically using CBCT. Moreover, patient satisfaction was evaluated using yes-or-no questions. The result was statistically analyzed using Fisher's Exact test.

RESULTS

Despite the differences in implant penetration depths, no clinical signs of sinusitis were evident in any patient. One patient presented with transient epistaxis after the surgery, and 2 patients with nine implants revealed nonsignificant thickening of the sinus membrane radiologically (p = 0.055). All implants showed optimum bone-implant contact with a 100% survival rate. A significant relationship was reported between the thickness of the membrane and the patient's gender, hypertension, and smoking habits. (p = 0.001*, p = 0.002*, and p = 0.034*, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Penetration of corticobasal implants in the maxillary sinus did not compromise the health of the maxillary sinus or implant survival rate.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Limited posterior maxillary bony support and maxillary sinus pneumatization present challenges in implant dentistry and increase the possibility of implant protrusion inside the maxillary and nasal cavities. Hence, studying the effect of this protrusion on the maxillary sinuses' health and implant survival is highly significant.

Three interfaces of the dental implant system and their clinical effects on hard and soft tissues

Anatomically, the human tooth has structures both embedded within and forming part of the exterior surface of the human body. When a tooth is lost, it is often replaced by a dental implant, to facilitate the chewing of food and for esthetic purposes. For successful substitution of the lost tooth, hard tissue should be integrated into the implant surface. The microtopography and chemistry of the implant surface have been explored with the aim of enhancing osseointegration. Additionally, clinical implant success is dependent on ensuring that a barrier, comprising strong gingival attachment to an abutment, does not allow the infiltration of oral bacteria into the bone-integrated surface. Epithelial and connective tissue cells respond to the abutment surface, depending on its surface characteristics and the materials from which it is made. In particular, the biomechanics of the implant-abutment connection structure (i.e., the biomechanics of the interface between implant and abutment surfaces, and the screw mechanics of the implant-abutment assembly) are critical for both the soft tissue seal and hard tissue integration. Herein, we discuss the clinical importance of these three interfaces: bone-implant, gingiva-abutment, and implant-abutment.

Epistaxis in dental and maxillofacial practice: a comprehensive review

The lifetime incidence of epistaxis in dental and maxillofacial practice has been reported to be as high as 60% and can be caused by dental implant placement, Le Fort I osteotomy, intranasal supernumerary tooth, odontogenic tumors, blood disorders and maxillofacial trauma. Most epistaxis cases are minor and easily managed with direct compression on the nares for 10 minutes. For more significant or recurrent epistaxis, other techniques might include electrocautery, anterior or posterior nasal packing, or Foley catheter balloon. For patients with refractory epistaxis, cauterization of the sphenopalatine artery under endonasal endoscopy or embolization of the internal maxillary artery should be performed. Epistaxis control is required in patients diagnosed with inherited or acquired bleeding disorders or with drug-induced coagulopathies during dental procedures. In these cases, hemostatic system adjustment and hemostasis achieved by local and adjunctive methods are required. Dentists and maxillofacial surgeons must be aware that the nasal cavity is a potential source of perioperative hemorrhage. Depending on the invasiveness of the dental intervention, preoperative involvement of the hematologist and cardiologist is usually necessary to reverse anticoagulation or to cease anticoagulant therapy.

Long-term effects of sinus membrane perforation on dental implants placed with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

There is a little comparative data on implants placed transcrestally with/without sinus membrane (SM) perforation.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of implants with maxillary sinus perforation and those without SM perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 560 transcrestally placed implants in 324 patients, the patients who underwent cone-beam computed tomographic radiography (CBCT) were included. The following groups were established: implants with SM perforation (group P) and implants without SM perforation based on postoperative panoramic radiographs and patient records (group NP). Group NP was further divided into subgroups based on CBCT taken at the last patient visit: group NP1 consisting of implants with no protrusion or <1 mm of protrusion and group NP2 consisting of implants with ≥1 mm of protrusion. Mixed linear regression was performed for the factors affecting SM thickening and marginal bone loss. Mixed survival analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 379 implants in 221 patients were eligible. The mean follow-up period was 112.03 ± 54.2 months. Twenty-six implants failed (2 and 24 implants in groups P and NP, respectively), mainly due to peri-implant bone loss. No statistically significant difference was noted between the groups in SM thickness (2.4 ± 2.8 mm, 2.1 ± 3.4 mm, and 2.5 ± 3.5 mm in groups P, NP1, and NP2, respectively, p > 0.05). Marginal bone loss in group NP1 was significantly greater than that in the other groups. In the mixed model, SM perforation was not a determinant of sinus membrane thickening and implant survival in the mixed models and the survival analysis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SM perforation in transcrestal sinus augmentation did not affect implant survival and SM thickening.

Effects of Corticobasal Implant Protrusion inside the Nasal and Maxillary Sinus

Background

Implant protrusion into the nasal and maxillary sinuses presents a challenge in cases of severely resorbed maxillae.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic effects of BECES^® implant penetration depth into the nasal and maxillary sinuses.

Setting and Design

This was an observational study conducted in a tertiary institution.

Materials and Methods

Forty-nine BECES^® implants were inserted into the maxilla of patients who presented with severely resorbed ridges but no history of sinusitis. Forty-five implants protruded into the sinus cavities. Patients were examined clinically and radiographically at 1 week and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after insertion. Maxillary sinus health, survival and success rates, and peri-implant health were assessed using the plaque index (PI), calculus index, modified gingival index (MGI), and probing pocket depth (PPD).

Statistical Analysis

Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney test were used in this study.

Results

Four (8.16%) of the 45 implants that penetrated the cavities reached the sinus floor without disrupting the membrane; the penetration depth was ≥4 mm in 20 implants (44.44%) and <4 mm in 25 (55.56%). No patient showed clinical or radiographic signs of sinusitis during the observation period. There were significant differences in the PI, MGI, and PPD values between baseline and the 18-month follow-up with no association with the penetration depth. All implants showed radiographically direct bone-to-implant contact. Where the implant tip barely reached the sinus floor, the membrane healed uneventfully while when deeply penetrating the sinus, the membrane healed around the implant but did not cover the tip. All prostheses and implants survived during the observation period.

Conclusion

Penetration depth of polished implants with cortical engagement into the maxillary sinus or the floor of the nose does not negatively affect implant survival, the success rate of the treatment, nor peri-implant soft-tissue health. It also does not provoke the development of sinusitis.

Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity on survival and complications rate: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After tooth loss, the posterior maxilla is usually characterized by limited bone height secondary to pneumatization of the maxillary sinus and/or collapse of the alveolar ridge that preclude in many instances the installation of dental implants. In order to compensate for the lack of bone height, several treatment options have been proposed. These treatment alternatives aimed at the installation of dental implants with or without the utilization of bone grafting materials avoiding the perforation of the Schneiderian membrane. Nevertheless, membrane perforations represent the most common complication among these procedures. Consequently, the present review aimed at the elucidation of the relevance of this phenomenon on implant survival and complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2018 reporting outcome of implant placement perforating the sinus floor without regenerative procedure (lateral sinus lift or transalveolar technique) and graft material. The intrusion of the implants can occur during drilling or implant placement, with and without punch out Schneiderian. Only studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the qualitative assessment.

RESULTS

Eight studies provided information on the survival rate, with a global sample of 493 implants, being the weighted mean survival rate 95.6% (IC 95%), after 52.7 months of follow-up. The level of implant penetration (≤ 4 mm or > 4 mm) did not report statistically significant differences in survival rate (p = 0.403). Seven studies provided information on the rate of clinical complications, being the mean complication rate 3.4% (IC 95%). The most frequent clinical complication was epistaxis, without finding significant differences according to the level of penetration. Five studies provide information on the radiographic complication; the most common complication was thickening of the Schneiderian membrane. The weighted complication rate was 14.8% (IC 95%), and penetration level affects the rate of radiological complications, being these of 5.29% in implant penetrating ≤4 mm and 29.3% in implant penetrating > 4 mm, without reaching statistical significant difference (p = 0.301).

CONCLUSION

The overall survival rate of the implants into the sinus cavity was 95.6%, without statistical differences according to the level of penetration. The clinical and radiological complications were 3.4% and 14.8% respectively. The most frequent clinical complication was the epistaxis, and the radiological complication was thickening of the Schneiderian membrane, without reaching statistical significant difference according to the level of implant penetration inside the sinus.

Schneiderian membrane perforation via transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A randomized ex vivo study with endoscopic validation

OBJECTIVE

To endoscopically determine the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation during transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation (SFE), in relation to the bone preparation technique, amount of bone graft, membrane elevation height and different surgical steps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven cadaver heads corresponding to 12 maxillary sinuses were used to perform three SFE via transcrestal approach per sinus (36 elevations). Each sinus was randomly assigned to either the Sinus Crestal Approach (SCA) drill kit technique (experimental group) or the conventional osteotome technique (control group). During all phases of the surgery, the integrity of the sinus membrane was monitored through endoscopic examination.

RESULTS

A significant difference was found in the incidence of perforation (p = 0.007) and vertical elevation height (p < 0.001) between the study groups, favoring the experimental group. A safety elevation threshold of 5 mm without bone graft and implant placement was estimated. A significant correlation was observed between the residual ridge height and the incidence of perforation (p < 0.001; OR = 0.51).

CONCLUSION

The SCA drill kit may demonstrate superior osteotomy preparation and membrane elevation capabilities to the osteotome technique, and significantly when a 6-mm SFE is indicated. Residual ridge height and vertical elevation height are risk determinant factors.