Article

Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation

Department of Technologies for Health, Dental Clinic, IRCCS Galeazzi Institute, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
European Journal Of Oral Sciences (Impact Factor: 1.73). 01/2009; 116(6):497-506. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00571.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Implant therapy in the atrophic posterior maxilla becomes challenging in the presence of reduced maxillary bone height. Sinus augmentation can be performed for resolving this condition prior to implant placement. The aim of this article was therefore to evaluate implant survival rates in the grafted sinus taking into account the influence of the implant surface, graft material, and implant placement timing. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Articles retrieved from electronic databases were screened using specific inclusion criteria, and data extracted were divided according to: graft material (autogenous, non-autogenous, composite graft), implant surface (machined or textured), and implant placement (simultaneous with grafting or delayed). Fifty-nine articles were included. Survival rates for implants placed in grafts made of bone substitutes alone and grafts of composite material were slightly better than the survival rates for implants placed in 100% autogenous grafts. Over 90% of implants associated with non-autogenous grafts had a textured surface. Textured surfaces achieved better outcomes compared with machined surfaces, and this was independent of the graft material. Simultaneous and delayed procedures had similar outcomes. It may be concluded that bone substitutes can be successfully used for sinus augmentation, reducing donor-site morbidity. Long-term studies are needed to confirm the performance of non-autogenous grafts. The use of implants with a textured surface may improve the outcome in any graft type.

Full-text

Available from: Massimo Del Fabbro, Dec 18, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
107 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the severely atrophied maxilla, implant anchorage in the zygomatic bone is considered a viable alternative to conventional dental implants with preceding bone augmentation procedures. The present microCT-based study compared the trabecular bone quality of the maxilla and zygomatic bone. MicroCT scanning was conducted in 12 halves of cadaver heads (5 male, 7 female) with edentulous, atrophied maxillae. Relevant trabecular bone quality parameters were determined in the anterior and posterior maxilla and in the zygomatic bone and compared by region and sex. Any difference in mean values between the anterior maxilla and the zygomatic bone was insignificant. Comparison of both with the posterior maxilla presented significantly higher values for bone volume fraction, surface density, and trabecular thickness and number, and significantly lower values for specific bone surface, structure model index, and trabecular separation. A significant sex-specific difference was not detected. The present microCT-based analysis is, to the best of our knowledge, the first intra-individual comparison of different implant anchorage sites for masticatory rehabilitation of the maxilla. The trabecular compartment of the zygomatic bone offered bone quality and, thus, an implant bed comparable with those of the anterior maxilla, and both were superior to the posterior maxilla. Copyright © 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery: official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.04.008 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A proper definition of the 'optimal' number of implants to support a full arch prosthesis should go beyond solely a listing of the number of implants used in a treatment plan; it should be based upon a biomechanical analysis that takes into account several factors: the locations of the implants in the jaw; the quality and quantity of bone into which they are placed; the loads (forces and moments) that develop on the implants; the magnitudes of stress and strain that develop in the interfacial bone as well as in the implants and prosthesis; and the relationship of the stresses and strains to limits for the materials involved. Overall, determining an 'optimal' number of implants to use in a patient is a biomechanical design problem. This paper discusses some of the approaches that are already available to aid biomechanically focused clinical treatment planning. A number of examples are presented to illustrate how relatively simple biomechanical analyses - e.g. the Skalak model - as well as more complex analyses (e.g. finite element modelling) can be used to assess the pros and cons of various arrangements of implants to support fullarch prostheses. Some of the examples considered include the use of 4 rather than 6 implants to span the same arc-length in a jaw, and the pros and cons of using tilted implants as in the 'all-on-4' approach. In evaluating the accuracy of the various biomechanical analyses, it is clear that our current prediction methods are not always perfectly accurate in vivo, although they can provide a reasonably approximate analysis of a treatment plan in many situations. In the current era of cone beam computerised tomography (CT) scans of patients in the dental office, there is significant promise for finite element analyses (FEA) based on anatomically-accurate input data. However, at the same time it has to be recognised that effective use of FEA software requires a reasonable engineering background, especially insofar as interpretations of the clinical significance of stresses and strains in bone and prosthetic materials. Conflict-of-interest statement: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.