The Experts below are selected from a list of 3696 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Marco Esposito - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral Sinus Lift procedures 1 year post loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Carlo Barausse, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans were selected. They were randomised according to a parallel group study design into two equal arms to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months, using a bone substitute in three different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months, loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures, assessed by masked assessors, were: augmentation procedure failures; prosthesis failures and implant failures; complications; and marginal peri-implant bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but one failed in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in three patients of the 1-stage group, versus one implant in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.61). One year after loading, 1-stage treated patients lost an average of -1.01 mm (SD: 0.56) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites about -0.93 mm (SD: 0.40). There were no statistically significant differences in bone level change between groups 1 year after loading (-0.08 mm 95%CI: -0.33 to 0.18 P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However this study may suggest that in patients having residual bone height between 1 to 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus, there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures 4 month post loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm of bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two equal groups to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months using a bone substitute in 3 different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months and loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were augmentation procedure failures, prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications and marginal peri-implant bone loss assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but 1 failed in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in 3 patients of the 1-stage group versus 1 implant in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.61). There were no statistically significant differences in bone loss between groups at loading (0.05 mm). Sites treated in 1 stage lost an average of 0.56 mm (SD: 0.36; 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.42; P < 0.001) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites approximately 0.61 mm (SD: 0.34; 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.48; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However, this study may suggest that in patients having a residual bone height between 1 and 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • effectiveness of Sinus Lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation a cochrane systematic review
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2010
    Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Pietro Felice, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Jonathan Rees, Dimitrios Karasoulos, Rami Alissa, H V Worthington, P Coulthard
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary Sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus Lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the Sinus cavity with autogenous bone and/or commercially available biomaterials. OBJECTIVES: To test whether and when augmentation of the maxillary Sinus is necessary and which are the most effective augmentation techniques for rehabilitating patients with implant-supported prostheses. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 7th January 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting the maxillary Sinus for rehabilitation with dental implants reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. RESULTS: Ten RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials were suitable for inclusion. One trial including 15 patients, evaluated whether 5-mm-long implants with a diameter of 6 mm could be an alternative to Sinus Lift in bone having a residual height of 4 to 6 mm. Nine trials with 235 patients compared different Sinus Lift techniques and, of these, four trials (114 patients) evaluated the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, only two meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of PRP could be performed for implant failures (two trials) and complications (three trials). No statistically significant difference was observed for any of the evaluated interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are based on few trials, usually underpowered, having short follow-ups, and often judged to be at high risk of bias, therefore they should be viewed as preliminary and interpreted with great caution. It is still unclear when Sinus Lift procedures are needed. Short implants (5 mm) can be successfully loaded in maxillary bone with a residual height of 4 to 6 mm, but their long-term prognosis is unknown. Elevating the Sinus lining in the presence of 1 to 5 mm of residual bone height without the addition of a bone graft may be sufficient to regenerate new bone to allow rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Bone substitutes might be successfully used as replacements for autogenous bone. If the residual alveolar bone height is 3 to 6 mm, a crestal approach to Lifting the Sinus lining and placing 8 mm implants may lead to less complications than a lateral window approach and placing implants at least 10 mm long. PRP treatment does not seem to improve the clinical outcome of Sinus Lift procedures with autogenous bone or bone substitutes.

Pietro Felice - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral Sinus Lift procedures 1 year post loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Carlo Barausse, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans were selected. They were randomised according to a parallel group study design into two equal arms to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months, using a bone substitute in three different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months, loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures, assessed by masked assessors, were: augmentation procedure failures; prosthesis failures and implant failures; complications; and marginal peri-implant bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but one failed in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in three patients of the 1-stage group, versus one implant in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.61). One year after loading, 1-stage treated patients lost an average of -1.01 mm (SD: 0.56) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites about -0.93 mm (SD: 0.40). There were no statistically significant differences in bone level change between groups 1 year after loading (-0.08 mm 95%CI: -0.33 to 0.18 P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However this study may suggest that in patients having residual bone height between 1 to 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus, there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • radiographic analysis of a transalveolar Sinus Lift technique a multipractice retrospective study with a mean follow up of 5 years
    Journal of Periodontology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Ferdinando Cosci, Vittorio Checchi, Paolo Bozzoli, Pietro Felice
    Abstract:

    Background: Various Sinus-Lift techniques have been described in the literature. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of a transalveolar Sinus-Lift technique in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss, and complications.Methods: A total of 538 patient records were examined, and after applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, a sample of patients was included with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Implants with a smooth or tapered surface were considered. Therefore, only Sinus Lifts with inorganic bovine bone matrix or demineralized bone matrix were included, and 1,536 periapical radiographs were analyzed. Outcome measures were implant success, implant failure (peri-implantitis and loss of osseointegration), marginal bone resorption, and biologic complications (membrane perforations, Sinusitis, and intraoperative and/or postoperative hemorrhage). Periapical radiographs were evaluated before surgery, post-surgery, and after 6 months and 1, 3, and 5 years. We analyzed the residua...

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures 4 month post loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm of bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two equal groups to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months using a bone substitute in 3 different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months and loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were augmentation procedure failures, prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications and marginal peri-implant bone loss assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but 1 failed in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in 3 patients of the 1-stage group versus 1 implant in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.61). There were no statistically significant differences in bone loss between groups at loading (0.05 mm). Sites treated in 1 stage lost an average of 0.56 mm (SD: 0.36; 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.42; P < 0.001) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites approximately 0.61 mm (SD: 0.34; 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.48; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However, this study may suggest that in patients having a residual bone height between 1 and 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • effectiveness of Sinus Lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation a cochrane systematic review
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2010
    Co-Authors: Marco Esposito, Pietro Felice, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Jonathan Rees, Dimitrios Karasoulos, Rami Alissa, H V Worthington, P Coulthard
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary Sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus Lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the Sinus cavity with autogenous bone and/or commercially available biomaterials. OBJECTIVES: To test whether and when augmentation of the maxillary Sinus is necessary and which are the most effective augmentation techniques for rehabilitating patients with implant-supported prostheses. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 7th January 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting the maxillary Sinus for rehabilitation with dental implants reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. RESULTS: Ten RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials were suitable for inclusion. One trial including 15 patients, evaluated whether 5-mm-long implants with a diameter of 6 mm could be an alternative to Sinus Lift in bone having a residual height of 4 to 6 mm. Nine trials with 235 patients compared different Sinus Lift techniques and, of these, four trials (114 patients) evaluated the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, only two meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of PRP could be performed for implant failures (two trials) and complications (three trials). No statistically significant difference was observed for any of the evaluated interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are based on few trials, usually underpowered, having short follow-ups, and often judged to be at high risk of bias, therefore they should be viewed as preliminary and interpreted with great caution. It is still unclear when Sinus Lift procedures are needed. Short implants (5 mm) can be successfully loaded in maxillary bone with a residual height of 4 to 6 mm, but their long-term prognosis is unknown. Elevating the Sinus lining in the presence of 1 to 5 mm of residual bone height without the addition of a bone graft may be sufficient to regenerate new bone to allow rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Bone substitutes might be successfully used as replacements for autogenous bone. If the residual alveolar bone height is 3 to 6 mm, a crestal approach to Lifting the Sinus lining and placing 8 mm implants may lead to less complications than a lateral window approach and placing implants at least 10 mm long. PRP treatment does not seem to improve the clinical outcome of Sinus Lift procedures with autogenous bone or bone substitutes.

  • outcome of 50 consecutive Sinus Lift operations
    British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 2005
    Co-Authors: F Papa, Antonio Cortese, Maria Cristina Maltarello, Raffaele Sagliocco, Pietro Felice, Pier Paolo Claudio
    Abstract:

    Summary We report 50 patients who had Sinus Lift operations between 1995 and 1999 using different grafting materials [autologous bone, heterologous bone, and hydroxyapatite]. The casenote were analysed clinically (intraoperative and postoperative results and complications), radiographically (amount of augmented bone 6 months postoperatively), and histologically (quality of the new bone 12 months postoperatively). Our aim was to find out if the various bone grafting materials used resulted in different outcomes after adjustment for significant predictors. We found that hydroxyapatite was associated with the lowest rate of loss of grafted material (median, 2.4 mm) followed by the autologous bone from iliac crest (2.8 mm). Bovine bone shown the highest loss (3.3 mm).

Elisa Soardi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral Sinus Lift procedures 1 year post loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Carlo Barausse, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans were selected. They were randomised according to a parallel group study design into two equal arms to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months, using a bone substitute in three different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months, loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures, assessed by masked assessors, were: augmentation procedure failures; prosthesis failures and implant failures; complications; and marginal peri-implant bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but one failed in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in three patients of the 1-stage group, versus one implant in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.61). One year after loading, 1-stage treated patients lost an average of -1.01 mm (SD: 0.56) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites about -0.93 mm (SD: 0.40). There were no statistically significant differences in bone level change between groups 1 year after loading (-0.08 mm 95%CI: -0.33 to 0.18 P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However this study may suggest that in patients having residual bone height between 1 to 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus, there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • radiographic analysis of a transalveolar Sinus Lift technique a multipractice retrospective study with a mean follow up of 5 years
    Journal of Periodontology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Ferdinando Cosci, Vittorio Checchi, Paolo Bozzoli, Pietro Felice
    Abstract:

    Background: Various Sinus-Lift techniques have been described in the literature. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of a transalveolar Sinus-Lift technique in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss, and complications.Methods: A total of 538 patient records were examined, and after applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, a sample of patients was included with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Implants with a smooth or tapered surface were considered. Therefore, only Sinus Lifts with inorganic bovine bone matrix or demineralized bone matrix were included, and 1,536 periapical radiographs were analyzed. Outcome measures were implant success, implant failure (peri-implantitis and loss of osseointegration), marginal bone resorption, and biologic complications (membrane perforations, Sinusitis, and intraoperative and/or postoperative hemorrhage). Periapical radiographs were evaluated before surgery, post-surgery, and after 6 months and 1, 3, and 5 years. We analyzed the residua...

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures 4 month post loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm of bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two equal groups to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months using a bone substitute in 3 different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months and loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were augmentation procedure failures, prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications and marginal peri-implant bone loss assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but 1 failed in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in 3 patients of the 1-stage group versus 1 implant in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.61). There were no statistically significant differences in bone loss between groups at loading (0.05 mm). Sites treated in 1 stage lost an average of 0.56 mm (SD: 0.36; 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.42; P < 0.001) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites approximately 0.61 mm (SD: 0.34; 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.48; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However, this study may suggest that in patients having a residual bone height between 1 and 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

Homlay Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the influence of Sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal Sinus Lift procedure
    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2015
    Co-Authors: Yeuhchao Yang, Homlay Wang
    Abstract:

    Objectives Schneiderian membrane perforation is one of the main complications during Sinus augmentation. The reasons may be associated with surgical technique, septum, inadequate ridge height, and membrane thickness. However, reports that used cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to quantify the thickness of Sinus membrane were limited. The aims of this retrospective study were: to study the correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate during transcrestal Sinus Lift and to propose a classification system of Sinus membrane thickness based upon CBCT data. Material and methods One hundred and twenty-two subjects who received dental implant restorations over posterior maxilla with a total of 185 transcrestal Sinus Lift procedures between years 2010 to 2013 were selected consequently. Each patient selected had to have taken CBCT in the initial examination and immediately after surgery. The membrane thickness, perforation rate, residual bone height, and elevated bone height were recorded and processed for statistical analysis. Results The mean thickness of the Schneiderian membrane was 1.78 ± 1.99 mm. There was a significant correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate (P < 0.05), and the perforation rate was higher in thicker (≥3 mm) and thinner membrane (≤0.5 mm). Among the thickness group, Class B (between ≥1 and <2 mm) had the lowest perforation rate. No significant difference was between the perforation and the membrane morphology. A negative relationship between residual bone height and membrane thickness was found. Trend showed that in the thicker and the thinner residual bone height, the higher the perforation rate would be. Conclusions There was a significant correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate. The perforation rate was lowest when the thickness was 1.5–2 mm.

Maurizio Piattelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral Sinus Lift procedures 1 year post loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Carlo Barausse, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans were selected. They were randomised according to a parallel group study design into two equal arms to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months, using a bone substitute in three different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months, loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures, assessed by masked assessors, were: augmentation procedure failures; prosthesis failures and implant failures; complications; and marginal peri-implant bone level changes. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but one failed in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in three patients of the 1-stage group, versus one implant in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and one in the 2-stage group, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.61). One year after loading, 1-stage treated patients lost an average of -1.01 mm (SD: 0.56) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites about -0.93 mm (SD: 0.40). There were no statistically significant differences in bone level change between groups 1 year after loading (-0.08 mm 95%CI: -0.33 to 0.18 P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However this study may suggest that in patients having residual bone height between 1 to 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus, there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.

  • 1 stage versus 2 stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures 4 month post loading results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial
    European Journal of Oral Implantology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Pietro Felice, Roberto Pistilli, Maurizio Piattelli, Elisa Soardi, Gerardo Pellegrino, Marco Esposito
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of 1-stage versus 2-stage lateral maxillary Sinus Lift procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty partially edentulous patients requiring 1 to 3 implants and having 1 to 3 mm of residual bone height and at least 5 mm of bone width below the maxillary Sinus, as measured on CT scans, were randomised into two equal groups to receive either a 1-stage lateral window Sinus Lift with simultaneous implant placement or a 2-stage procedure with implant placement delayed by 4 months using a bone substitute in 3 different centres. Implants were submerged for 4 months and loaded with reinforced provisional prostheses, which were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were augmentation procedure failures, prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications and marginal peri-implant bone loss assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading. Only data of implants placed in 1 to 3 mm of bone height were reported. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the 1-stage group and none from the 2-stage group. No Sinus Lift procedure failed in the 1-stage group but 1 failed in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Two prostheses failed or could not be placed in the planned time in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.51). Three implants failed in 3 patients of the 1-stage group versus 1 implant in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.28). Two complications occurred in the 1-stage group and 1 in the 2-stage group, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.61). There were no statistically significant differences in bone loss between groups at loading (0.05 mm). Sites treated in 1 stage lost an average of 0.56 mm (SD: 0.36; 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.42; P < 0.001) of peri-implant bone and 2-stage sites approximately 0.61 mm (SD: 0.34; 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.48; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between implants placed according to 1- or 2-stage Sinus Lift procedures. However, this study may suggest that in patients having a residual bone height between 1 and 3 mm below the maxillary Sinus there might be a slightly higher risk for implant failures when performing a 1-stage lateral Sinus Lift procedure.