Article

The maxillary sinus floor in the oral implantology.

Clinical and Topographical Anatomy Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie (Impact Factor: 0.62). 02/2008; 49(4):485-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to establish the mean distances between the maxillary sinus floor and the roots of the lateral maxillary teeth in dentate subjects, respectively the mean height of the available bone for oral implant placement in the corresponding area, in edentulous ones.
We determined the maxillary sinus floor position in relation to morphoclinical alveolodental benchmarks on 50 dry skulls, dentate 30 and edentulous 20, and correlations were performed by use of 40 CT-scans of the targeted area. In addition, 20 human adult cadavers were bilaterally dissected in order to bring topographical evidence at that level.
The data we obtained lead us to define three dentosinusal relations: tangent (close) relation 60.8%; distanced relation 25.6%; penetrating relation: 13.6%; three subantral classes in edentulous patients, emphasizing the direct relation of the age of the edentulism and the degree of bone resorption. We discuss the results we obtained from the viewpoint of their application in the field of oral implantology.
The maxillary sinus floor represents the danger zone for the oral implantology.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
113 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A review of maxillary sinus floor elevation as an integral part of restoring the posterior maxilla is discussed. The related anatomy of the area and the current techniques available are reviewed. The classic lateral antrostomy pioneered by Tatum appears to be the most common sinus lift procedure. The more conservative crestal approach, advocated by Summers, provides another effective way of allowing implant fixture placement in the atrophic maxilla.
    Implant Dentistry 04/2004; 13(1):28-32. · 1.40 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
4 Downloads
Available from
Mar 28, 2014