IADR Abstract Archives
Implants Placed in Augmented Maxillary Sinus Using Two Elevation Techniques
Objectives: There is a scientific dilemma about which technique is best for sinus floor elevation for rehabilitation of the posterior maxillary area with dental implants. The purpose of this research is to assess the effectiveness of two distinct sinus floor elevation procedures for implants implanted concurrently with maxillary sinus bone augmentation.
Methods: In our study fourteen patients who had deficient residual bone height as a result of maxillary sinus pneumatization had a total of thirty implants placed. Based on the technique used, these patients were divided into two groups at random: the test arm underwent the closed sinus elevation, and the control arm underwent the open sinus elevation. Both groups had allogenic bone augmentation for the elevated sinus floors. The study was double blinded as both the statistician and the outcome assessor were blinded. Using Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), implant stability was evaluated throughout a 12-month follow-up, which also involved measuring success and failure of the dental implants, monitoring bleeding indices, probing depths, and plaque. Additionally, using fusion module of cone beam computed tomography, changes in vertical bone height and ridge alterations surrounding the implants were assessed. Bone Density was evaluated using DIGORA. Mesial and distal marginal bone loss were also assessed using a novel standardized periapical radiographic technique. Patient Centered Outcomes as pain and function were also assessed.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the changes in ISQ scores and other radiographic data, as well as patient centered outcomes. In terms of the clinical results, the closed group outperformed the open group in terms of bleeding index scores only (p=0.027).
Conclusions: Closed sinus elevation has been shown to be an effective procedure, it is advised to utilize it in cases of 4 to 7 mm of residual bone height crestal to the sinus floor.
Methods: In our study fourteen patients who had deficient residual bone height as a result of maxillary sinus pneumatization had a total of thirty implants placed. Based on the technique used, these patients were divided into two groups at random: the test arm underwent the closed sinus elevation, and the control arm underwent the open sinus elevation. Both groups had allogenic bone augmentation for the elevated sinus floors. The study was double blinded as both the statistician and the outcome assessor were blinded. Using Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA), implant stability was evaluated throughout a 12-month follow-up, which also involved measuring success and failure of the dental implants, monitoring bleeding indices, probing depths, and plaque. Additionally, using fusion module of cone beam computed tomography, changes in vertical bone height and ridge alterations surrounding the implants were assessed. Bone Density was evaluated using DIGORA. Mesial and distal marginal bone loss were also assessed using a novel standardized periapical radiographic technique. Patient Centered Outcomes as pain and function were also assessed.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the changes in ISQ scores and other radiographic data, as well as patient centered outcomes. In terms of the clinical results, the closed group outperformed the open group in terms of bleeding index scores only (p=0.027).
Conclusions: Closed sinus elevation has been shown to be an effective procedure, it is advised to utilize it in cases of 4 to 7 mm of residual bone height crestal to the sinus floor.