Sinus augmentation by orthodontic movement as an alternative to a surgical sinus lift: A clinical report Renato Savi de Carvalho, DDS, MS, PhD,a Alberto Consolaro, DDS, MS, PhD,b Carlos Eduardo Francischone, Jr, DDS, MS, PhD,c and Ana Paula Rabello de Macedo Carvalho, DDSd University of São Paulo, Bauru Dental School, (FOB) Bauru, Brazil; University Of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Dental School, (FORP), Ribeirao Preto, Brazil Maxillary sinus pneumatization may significantly reduce the alveolar bone height. As a result, the sinus membrane may need to be apically repositioned, with or without grafts, before or at the time of implant placement. The sinus lift, however, is a relatively invasive surgical procedure that can lead to complications and sometimes unsuccessful results. This clinical report presents an orthodontic movement to enlarge the amount of bone at the sinus region for implant placement. The approach avoided surgery in a patient who used tobacco and exhibited recurrent sinusitis. (J Prosthet Dent 2014;-:---) Maxillary sinus pneumatization may significantly reduce alveolar bone height. As a result, the sinus membrane must be apically repositioned with or without grafting to allow implant placement.1-3 Since the early 1980s, when Boyne and James4 published the technique suggested by Tatum in 1977, the procedure for a maxillary sinus lift has been widely used, and implant success rates after sinus lifts of approximately 97% have been reported.5,6 However, this surgical approach is characterized as a moderately invasive procedure and presents restrictions for some patients.2 The indications for maxillary sinus lift are not fully elucidated. Short implants (5 mm) may be placed and loaded in a maxilla with a residual bone height of 4 to 6 mm; however, their long-term prognosis is still unknown.2 Therefore, a minimum bone height of 7.0 mm is recommended for implant placement without a maxillary sinus lift.7-9 A minimum bone height of between 2 and 5 mm between the a
alveolar crest and the pneumatized sinus floor should be available for implant placement.10-12 In situations of mild bone atrophy, osteotomes also are used as part of a less-invasive technique to achieve a slight lift of the maxillary sinus by the transalveolar access.13-16 High success rates have been achieved when implants are placed in sinuses filled with autogenous bone.17-21 The osteogenic capacity of this material combined with the absence of immunogenicity seems to be the main factor that contributes to the high success rates, yet its collection requires a second surgical site (donor site), which increases the morbidity of the procedure. When large quantities are necessary or in situations in which an autogenous donor site should be avoided, alloplastic grafts, xenografts, or allografts may be used to maintain satisfactory success rates.22-24 Despite the satisfactory success rates, sinus lift procedures may cause complications or may be contraindicated for some
patients. The complication most commonly mentioned in these procedures is perforation of the sinus membrane. This problem may lead to infection and the risk of graft loss or resorption, acute or chronic sinusitis, and periimplantitis.25-28 Because of reports of hemorrhaging, the vascular supply of the maxillary sinus has been investigated.29-31 During surgery for maxillary sinus lift, some intraosseous vessels may occasionally be sectioned, which causes complications in nearly 20% of sinusal osteotomies. In an investigation that used cadavers, Rodella et al32 found large vessels in 66% of the maxillary sinuses examined. Although not high, the postoperative occurrence of acute and/or chronic sinusitis has been observed and seems to be related to patients with a history of the disease, even when controlled before surgery. These patients must be informed of the increased risk of intervention in sinuses with this history and require careful follow-up and prompt
Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. Full Professor, Department of Stomatology, Universityof São Paulo, Bauru Dental School (FOB) and Post Graduation, University of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Dental School (FORP). c Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. d Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. b
Savi de Carvalho et al
2
Volume
-
Issue
-
1 A, Before treatment, edentulous area related to maxillary right first molar. B, Reduced mesiodistal space for placement of prosthetic crown with molar anatomy. Dimensions similar to premolar. care if signs or symptoms of sinusitis recur.33 Although not representing an absolute contraindication to the technique, two studies have reported higher failure rates when procedures for maxillary sinus lift and implants are performed in patients who smoke.34,35 Baig and Rajan36 reported that implants placed in patients who smoke and who had undergone a sinus lift procedure presented a 2-fold failure rate compared with the same procedure performed in patients who do not smoke. Kan et al37 found success rates of only 65.3% of implants placed after maxillary sinus lift in patients who smoke, and Levin and Schwartz-Arad38 assigned the high failure rates of grafts and implants in the maxillary sinus to the heat and toxic by-products of cigarettes, for example, nicotine, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide. These investigators mentioned that dental professionals should encourage their patients to refrain from smoking before the graft or implant procedure.39 Barone et al40 observed complications in 71.4% of patients who smoked, whose membranes were perforated during sinus lift procedures. The same investigators also reported that the combination of smoking and onlay grafts in the maxillary sinus may significantly increase the rate of postoperative infection. This report presents an option for increasing the alveolar bone in pneumatized maxillary sinus regions by inducing tooth movement.
CLINICAL REPORT A 38-year-old man presented to a private office with the loss of the maxillary right first molar. The placement of an implant was indicated to rehabilitate this edentulous region (Fig. 1). A radiographic examination (Fig. 2A) revealed a wide extension of the maxillary sinus toward the alveolar bone crest and insufficient remaining height available for implant placement (approximately 2.0 mm). As a result, graft procedures were necessary before implant placement. During the examination, the patient reported that he was a smoker and that he experienced recurrent episodes of bilateral sinus pathology, both of which contraindicated a surgical maxillary sinus lift. When asked if he could refrain from smoking for some months, the patient refused. To optimize the prognosis and minimize the complications, an orthodontic procedure was performed instead of a surgical maxillary sinus lift and bone graft. The clinical examination revealed the slight mesial placement of the maxillary right second and third molars and the consequent reduction of the original space of the maxillary right first molar, extracted 24 years earlier due to a carious lesion. The plan was to move the maxillary right second premolar distally to fill the space left by the maxillary right first molar, which had been reduced by the mesial movement of the maxillary right second and third molars. Besides reducing the enlarged
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
sinus volume by compressing its anterior wall, this movement would open space for placement of an implant at the region of the maxillary right second premolar, which eliminates the need for surgical intervention and grafting in the sinus (Fig. 2B-D). The advantages of this procedure include its less-invasive nature, the avoidance of surgical intervention in a patient with a history of sinusitis, the reduced risk factors of sinus bone grafts in patients who smoke, and implant placement in mature bone rather than in grafted bone. The total treatment time, including orthodontics, implant placement, and crown delivery is comparable with that of conventional treatment with the surgical sinus lift approach because orthodontic treatment requires 6 months and implant healing for 4 months before crown delivery. When a surgical sinus approach is performed, and depending on the grafting material, a minimum healing period of 6 months is recommended before implant placement.41,42
DISCUSSION During orthodontic movement, the periodontal tissues are submitted to mild and moderate forces that stimulate the unidirectional bone and periodontal remodeling, with formation of bone in areas of tension and resorption in areas of pressure.43 As this process is established, the periodontal tissues follow the root displacement.43 In this patient,
Savi de Carvalho et al
-
2014
3
2 A, Pretreatment radiograph, showing extension of maxillary sinus toward alveolar process. Note thin layer of remaining bone between bone crest and coronal prolongation of sinus. B, Ongoing orthodontic treatment. Six months were necessary for complete distal movement (crown and root) of maxillary right second premolar. C, Radiographic image, showing osseointegrated implant-supporting definitive prosthetic crown. D, Posttreatment. toward the distal region. In the bone area from which the tooth was displaced, the tissue maintained its previous height and thickness. Placing an implant in a region previously occupied by a tooth implies a functional demand and the establishment of a new histophysiology in the area with the maintenance of bone volume and height. Mild and moderate forces promote the distal displacement of the tooth and gradual bone remodeling, which progressively fills the pneumatized area. The cortical bone displaces the maxillary sinus floor during the bone and periodontal remodeling process induced by the orthodontic movement. The sinus mucosa follows the cortical bone in this displacement, together with the underlying periosteum. Thus, orthodontic movement may be an option for reducing the pneumatized maxillary sinus areas in the alveolar bone to allow the placement of an endosseous implant.
Savi de Carvalho et al
CONCLUSIONS Orthodontic movement is a safe and predictable procedure, and may replace sinus lift and graft procedures for patients who smoke or for individuals with a history of sinusitis. The procedure also allows implant placement in an area of mature bone rather than in grafted bone, which may be a favorable aspect to osseointegration.
REFERENCES 1. Cho-Lee GY, Naval-Gias L, CastrejonCastrejon S, Capote-Moreno AL, GonzalezGarcia R, Sastre-Perez J, et al. A 12-year retrospective analytic study of the implant survival rate in 177 consecutive maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1019-27. 2. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Rees J, Karasoulos D, Felice P, Alissa R, et al. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:7-26.
3. Barone A, Orlando B, Tonelli P, Covani U. Survival rate for implants placed in the posterior maxilla with and without sinus augmentation: a comparative cohort study. J Periodontol 2011;82:219-26. 4. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613-6. 5. Viscioni A, Dalla Rosa J, Paolin A, Franco M. Fresh-frozen bone: case series of a new grafting material for sinus lift and immediate implants. J Ir Dent Assoc 2010;56:186-91. 6. de Vicente JC, Hernández-Vallejo G, BrañaAbascal P, Peña I. Maxillary sinus augmentation with autologous bone harvested from the lateral maxillary wall combined with bovine-derived hydroxyapatite: clinical and histologic observations. Clin Oral Implant Res 2010;21:430-8. 7. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:856-63. 8. Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:302-12. 9. De Santis D, Cucchi A, Longhi C, Vicenzo B. Short threaded implants with an oxidized surface to restore posterior teeth: 1- to 3-year results of a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:393-403.
4
Volume 10. Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Fischer K, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Influence of residual alveolar bone height on osseointegration of implants in the maxilla: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20: 555-9. 11. Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Stockmann P, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Influence of residual alveolar bone height on implant stability in the maxilla: an experimental animal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:751-5. 12. Sivolella S, Bressan E, Gnocco E, Berengo M, Favero GA. Maxillary sinus augmentation with bovine bone and simultaneous dental implant placement in conditions of severe alveolar atrophy: a retrospective analysis of a consecutively treated case series. Quintessence Int 2011;42:851-62. 13. Toffler M. Osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:266-73. 14. Engelke W, Schwarzwäller W, Behnsen A, Jacobs HG. Subantroscopic laterobasal sinus floor augmentation (SALSA): an up-to-5-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;18:135-43. 15. Pontes FS, Zuza EP, de Toledo BE. Summers’ technique modification for sinus floor elevation using a connective tissue graft. A case report. J Int Acad Periodontol 2010;12: 27-30. 16. Fermergård R, Astrand P. Osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a 3-year retrospective study with Astra Tech implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14: 198-205. 17. Sakka S, Krenkel C. Simultaneous maxillary sinus lifting and implant placement with autogenous parietal bone graft: outcome of 17 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011;39:187-91. 18. Johansson LA, Isaksson S, Lindh C, Becktor JP, Sennerby L. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation and simultaneous implant placement using locally harvested autogenous bone chips and bone debris: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:837-44. 19. Kim YK, Hwang JW, Lee HJ, Yun PY. Use of the coronoid process as a donor site for sinus augmentation: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1149-52. 20. Kahnberg KE, Wallström M, Rasmusson L. Local sinus lift for single-tooth implant. Clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:231-7. 21. Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris G, Sbordone C, Guidetti F. Implant success in sinus-lifted maxillae and native bone: a 3year clinical and computerized tomographic follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:316-24.
22. Pettinicchio M, Traini T, Murmura G, Caputi S, Degidi M, Mangano C, et al. Histologic and histomorphometric results of three bone graft substitutes after sinus augmentation in humans. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:45-53. 23. Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R, Gedrange T, Goetz W. A 3-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed simultaneously with maxillary sinus floor augmentations using a new nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009;8: 91-7. 24. Hieu PD, Chung JH, Yim SB, Hong KS. A radiographical study on the changes in height of grafting materials after sinus lift: a comparison between two types of xenogenic materials. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40: 25-32. 25. Biglioli F, Pedrazzoli M, Colletti G. Repair of a perforated sinus membrane with a palatal fibromucosal graft: a case report. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:299-302. 26. Kim YK, Hwang JW, Yun PY. Closure of large perforation of sinus membrane using pedicled buccal fat pad graft: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1139-42. 27. Hong SB, Kim JS, Shin SI, Han JY, Herr Y, Chung JH. Clinical treatment of postoperative infection following sinus augmentation. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40: 144-9. 28. Sohn DS, Lee JK, Shin HI, Choi BJ, An KM. Fungal infection as a complication of sinus bone grafting and implants: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod 2009;107:375-80. 29. Rosano G, Taschieri S, Gaudy JF, Del Fabbro M. Maxillary sinus vascularization: a cadaveric study. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20: 940-3. 30. Ella B, Sédarat C, Noble Rda C, Normand E, Lauverjat Y, Siberchicot F, et al. Vascular connections of the lateral wall of the sinus: surgical effect in sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1047-52. 31. Testori T, Rosano G, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Ligation of an unusually large vessel during maxillary sinus floor augmentation. A case report. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:255-8. 32. Rodella LF, Labanca M, Boninsegna R, Favero G, Tschabitscher M, Rezzani R. Intraosseous anastomosis in the maxillary sinus. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:349-54. 33. Manor Y, Mardinger O, Bietlitum I, Nashef A, Nissan J, Chaushu G. Late signs and symptoms of maxillary sinusitis after sinus augmentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod 2010;110: 1-4.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
-
Issue
-
34. Kahnberg KE, Vannas-Löfqvist L. Sinus lift procedure using a 2-stage surgical technique: I. Clinical and radiographic report up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23: 876-84. 35. Anzalone JV, Vastardis S. Oroantral communication as an osteotome sinus elevation complication. J Oral Implantol 2010;36:231-7. 36. Baig MR, Rajan M. Effects of smoking on the outcome of implant treatment: a literature review. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:190-5. 37. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Goodacre CJ. Effects of smoking on implant success in grafted maxillary sinuses. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:307-11. 38. Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. The effect of cigarette smoking on dental implants and related surgery. Implant Dent 2005;14: 357-61. 39. Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D, Nitzan D. Smoking as a risk factor for dental implants and implant-related surgery. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2005;22:37-43. 40. Barone A, Santini S, Sbordone L, Crespi R, Covani U. A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:81-5. 41. Marchand-Libouban H, Guillaume B, Bellaiche N, Chappard D. Texture analysis of computed tomographic images in osteoporotic patients with sinus lift bone graft reconstruction. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17: 1267-72. 42. Serra e Silva FM, Ricardo de AlbergariaBarbosa J, Mazzonetto R. Clinical evaluation of association of bovine organic osseous matrix and bovine bone morphogenetic protein versus autogenous bone graft in sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:931-5. 43. Consolaro A. The four mechanisms of dental resorption initiation. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:7-9. Corresponding author: Dr Renato Savi de Carvalho Rua Rio Branco 19-45 17014-037, Vila América Bauru-SP BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected] Copyright ª 2014 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Savi de Carvalho et al
alveolar crest and the pneumatized sinus floor should be available for implant placement.10-12 In situations of mild bone atrophy, osteotomes also are used as part of a less-invasive technique to achieve a slight lift of the maxillary sinus by the transalveolar access.13-16 High success rates have been achieved when implants are placed in sinuses filled with autogenous bone.17-21 The osteogenic capacity of this material combined with the absence of immunogenicity seems to be the main factor that contributes to the high success rates, yet its collection requires a second surgical site (donor site), which increases the morbidity of the procedure. When large quantities are necessary or in situations in which an autogenous donor site should be avoided, alloplastic grafts, xenografts, or allografts may be used to maintain satisfactory success rates.22-24 Despite the satisfactory success rates, sinus lift procedures may cause complications or may be contraindicated for some
patients. The complication most commonly mentioned in these procedures is perforation of the sinus membrane. This problem may lead to infection and the risk of graft loss or resorption, acute or chronic sinusitis, and periimplantitis.25-28 Because of reports of hemorrhaging, the vascular supply of the maxillary sinus has been investigated.29-31 During surgery for maxillary sinus lift, some intraosseous vessels may occasionally be sectioned, which causes complications in nearly 20% of sinusal osteotomies. In an investigation that used cadavers, Rodella et al32 found large vessels in 66% of the maxillary sinuses examined. Although not high, the postoperative occurrence of acute and/or chronic sinusitis has been observed and seems to be related to patients with a history of the disease, even when controlled before surgery. These patients must be informed of the increased risk of intervention in sinuses with this history and require careful follow-up and prompt
Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. Full Professor, Department of Stomatology, Universityof São Paulo, Bauru Dental School (FOB) and Post Graduation, University of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Dental School (FORP). c Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. d Private practice, Bauru, SP, Brazil. b
Savi de Carvalho et al
2
Volume
-
Issue
-
1 A, Before treatment, edentulous area related to maxillary right first molar. B, Reduced mesiodistal space for placement of prosthetic crown with molar anatomy. Dimensions similar to premolar. care if signs or symptoms of sinusitis recur.33 Although not representing an absolute contraindication to the technique, two studies have reported higher failure rates when procedures for maxillary sinus lift and implants are performed in patients who smoke.34,35 Baig and Rajan36 reported that implants placed in patients who smoke and who had undergone a sinus lift procedure presented a 2-fold failure rate compared with the same procedure performed in patients who do not smoke. Kan et al37 found success rates of only 65.3% of implants placed after maxillary sinus lift in patients who smoke, and Levin and Schwartz-Arad38 assigned the high failure rates of grafts and implants in the maxillary sinus to the heat and toxic by-products of cigarettes, for example, nicotine, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide. These investigators mentioned that dental professionals should encourage their patients to refrain from smoking before the graft or implant procedure.39 Barone et al40 observed complications in 71.4% of patients who smoked, whose membranes were perforated during sinus lift procedures. The same investigators also reported that the combination of smoking and onlay grafts in the maxillary sinus may significantly increase the rate of postoperative infection. This report presents an option for increasing the alveolar bone in pneumatized maxillary sinus regions by inducing tooth movement.
CLINICAL REPORT A 38-year-old man presented to a private office with the loss of the maxillary right first molar. The placement of an implant was indicated to rehabilitate this edentulous region (Fig. 1). A radiographic examination (Fig. 2A) revealed a wide extension of the maxillary sinus toward the alveolar bone crest and insufficient remaining height available for implant placement (approximately 2.0 mm). As a result, graft procedures were necessary before implant placement. During the examination, the patient reported that he was a smoker and that he experienced recurrent episodes of bilateral sinus pathology, both of which contraindicated a surgical maxillary sinus lift. When asked if he could refrain from smoking for some months, the patient refused. To optimize the prognosis and minimize the complications, an orthodontic procedure was performed instead of a surgical maxillary sinus lift and bone graft. The clinical examination revealed the slight mesial placement of the maxillary right second and third molars and the consequent reduction of the original space of the maxillary right first molar, extracted 24 years earlier due to a carious lesion. The plan was to move the maxillary right second premolar distally to fill the space left by the maxillary right first molar, which had been reduced by the mesial movement of the maxillary right second and third molars. Besides reducing the enlarged
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
sinus volume by compressing its anterior wall, this movement would open space for placement of an implant at the region of the maxillary right second premolar, which eliminates the need for surgical intervention and grafting in the sinus (Fig. 2B-D). The advantages of this procedure include its less-invasive nature, the avoidance of surgical intervention in a patient with a history of sinusitis, the reduced risk factors of sinus bone grafts in patients who smoke, and implant placement in mature bone rather than in grafted bone. The total treatment time, including orthodontics, implant placement, and crown delivery is comparable with that of conventional treatment with the surgical sinus lift approach because orthodontic treatment requires 6 months and implant healing for 4 months before crown delivery. When a surgical sinus approach is performed, and depending on the grafting material, a minimum healing period of 6 months is recommended before implant placement.41,42
DISCUSSION During orthodontic movement, the periodontal tissues are submitted to mild and moderate forces that stimulate the unidirectional bone and periodontal remodeling, with formation of bone in areas of tension and resorption in areas of pressure.43 As this process is established, the periodontal tissues follow the root displacement.43 In this patient,
Savi de Carvalho et al
-
2014
3
2 A, Pretreatment radiograph, showing extension of maxillary sinus toward alveolar process. Note thin layer of remaining bone between bone crest and coronal prolongation of sinus. B, Ongoing orthodontic treatment. Six months were necessary for complete distal movement (crown and root) of maxillary right second premolar. C, Radiographic image, showing osseointegrated implant-supporting definitive prosthetic crown. D, Posttreatment. toward the distal region. In the bone area from which the tooth was displaced, the tissue maintained its previous height and thickness. Placing an implant in a region previously occupied by a tooth implies a functional demand and the establishment of a new histophysiology in the area with the maintenance of bone volume and height. Mild and moderate forces promote the distal displacement of the tooth and gradual bone remodeling, which progressively fills the pneumatized area. The cortical bone displaces the maxillary sinus floor during the bone and periodontal remodeling process induced by the orthodontic movement. The sinus mucosa follows the cortical bone in this displacement, together with the underlying periosteum. Thus, orthodontic movement may be an option for reducing the pneumatized maxillary sinus areas in the alveolar bone to allow the placement of an endosseous implant.
Savi de Carvalho et al
CONCLUSIONS Orthodontic movement is a safe and predictable procedure, and may replace sinus lift and graft procedures for patients who smoke or for individuals with a history of sinusitis. The procedure also allows implant placement in an area of mature bone rather than in grafted bone, which may be a favorable aspect to osseointegration.
REFERENCES 1. Cho-Lee GY, Naval-Gias L, CastrejonCastrejon S, Capote-Moreno AL, GonzalezGarcia R, Sastre-Perez J, et al. A 12-year retrospective analytic study of the implant survival rate in 177 consecutive maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1019-27. 2. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Rees J, Karasoulos D, Felice P, Alissa R, et al. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:7-26.
3. Barone A, Orlando B, Tonelli P, Covani U. Survival rate for implants placed in the posterior maxilla with and without sinus augmentation: a comparative cohort study. J Periodontol 2011;82:219-26. 4. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613-6. 5. Viscioni A, Dalla Rosa J, Paolin A, Franco M. Fresh-frozen bone: case series of a new grafting material for sinus lift and immediate implants. J Ir Dent Assoc 2010;56:186-91. 6. de Vicente JC, Hernández-Vallejo G, BrañaAbascal P, Peña I. Maxillary sinus augmentation with autologous bone harvested from the lateral maxillary wall combined with bovine-derived hydroxyapatite: clinical and histologic observations. Clin Oral Implant Res 2010;21:430-8. 7. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:856-63. 8. Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:302-12. 9. De Santis D, Cucchi A, Longhi C, Vicenzo B. Short threaded implants with an oxidized surface to restore posterior teeth: 1- to 3-year results of a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:393-403.
4
Volume 10. Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Fischer K, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Influence of residual alveolar bone height on osseointegration of implants in the maxilla: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20: 555-9. 11. Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Stockmann P, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E. Influence of residual alveolar bone height on implant stability in the maxilla: an experimental animal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:751-5. 12. Sivolella S, Bressan E, Gnocco E, Berengo M, Favero GA. Maxillary sinus augmentation with bovine bone and simultaneous dental implant placement in conditions of severe alveolar atrophy: a retrospective analysis of a consecutively treated case series. Quintessence Int 2011;42:851-62. 13. Toffler M. Osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:266-73. 14. Engelke W, Schwarzwäller W, Behnsen A, Jacobs HG. Subantroscopic laterobasal sinus floor augmentation (SALSA): an up-to-5-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;18:135-43. 15. Pontes FS, Zuza EP, de Toledo BE. Summers’ technique modification for sinus floor elevation using a connective tissue graft. A case report. J Int Acad Periodontol 2010;12: 27-30. 16. Fermergård R, Astrand P. Osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts: a 3-year retrospective study with Astra Tech implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14: 198-205. 17. Sakka S, Krenkel C. Simultaneous maxillary sinus lifting and implant placement with autogenous parietal bone graft: outcome of 17 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011;39:187-91. 18. Johansson LA, Isaksson S, Lindh C, Becktor JP, Sennerby L. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation and simultaneous implant placement using locally harvested autogenous bone chips and bone debris: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:837-44. 19. Kim YK, Hwang JW, Lee HJ, Yun PY. Use of the coronoid process as a donor site for sinus augmentation: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1149-52. 20. Kahnberg KE, Wallström M, Rasmusson L. Local sinus lift for single-tooth implant. Clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13:231-7. 21. Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris G, Sbordone C, Guidetti F. Implant success in sinus-lifted maxillae and native bone: a 3year clinical and computerized tomographic follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:316-24.
22. Pettinicchio M, Traini T, Murmura G, Caputi S, Degidi M, Mangano C, et al. Histologic and histomorphometric results of three bone graft substitutes after sinus augmentation in humans. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:45-53. 23. Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R, Gedrange T, Goetz W. A 3-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed simultaneously with maxillary sinus floor augmentations using a new nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009;8: 91-7. 24. Hieu PD, Chung JH, Yim SB, Hong KS. A radiographical study on the changes in height of grafting materials after sinus lift: a comparison between two types of xenogenic materials. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40: 25-32. 25. Biglioli F, Pedrazzoli M, Colletti G. Repair of a perforated sinus membrane with a palatal fibromucosal graft: a case report. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:299-302. 26. Kim YK, Hwang JW, Yun PY. Closure of large perforation of sinus membrane using pedicled buccal fat pad graft: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1139-42. 27. Hong SB, Kim JS, Shin SI, Han JY, Herr Y, Chung JH. Clinical treatment of postoperative infection following sinus augmentation. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40: 144-9. 28. Sohn DS, Lee JK, Shin HI, Choi BJ, An KM. Fungal infection as a complication of sinus bone grafting and implants: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod 2009;107:375-80. 29. Rosano G, Taschieri S, Gaudy JF, Del Fabbro M. Maxillary sinus vascularization: a cadaveric study. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20: 940-3. 30. Ella B, Sédarat C, Noble Rda C, Normand E, Lauverjat Y, Siberchicot F, et al. Vascular connections of the lateral wall of the sinus: surgical effect in sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1047-52. 31. Testori T, Rosano G, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Ligation of an unusually large vessel during maxillary sinus floor augmentation. A case report. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010;3:255-8. 32. Rodella LF, Labanca M, Boninsegna R, Favero G, Tschabitscher M, Rezzani R. Intraosseous anastomosis in the maxillary sinus. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:349-54. 33. Manor Y, Mardinger O, Bietlitum I, Nashef A, Nissan J, Chaushu G. Late signs and symptoms of maxillary sinusitis after sinus augmentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod 2010;110: 1-4.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
-
Issue
-
34. Kahnberg KE, Vannas-Löfqvist L. Sinus lift procedure using a 2-stage surgical technique: I. Clinical and radiographic report up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23: 876-84. 35. Anzalone JV, Vastardis S. Oroantral communication as an osteotome sinus elevation complication. J Oral Implantol 2010;36:231-7. 36. Baig MR, Rajan M. Effects of smoking on the outcome of implant treatment: a literature review. Indian J Dent Res 2007;18:190-5. 37. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Goodacre CJ. Effects of smoking on implant success in grafted maxillary sinuses. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:307-11. 38. Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. The effect of cigarette smoking on dental implants and related surgery. Implant Dent 2005;14: 357-61. 39. Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D, Nitzan D. Smoking as a risk factor for dental implants and implant-related surgery. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2005;22:37-43. 40. Barone A, Santini S, Sbordone L, Crespi R, Covani U. A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:81-5. 41. Marchand-Libouban H, Guillaume B, Bellaiche N, Chappard D. Texture analysis of computed tomographic images in osteoporotic patients with sinus lift bone graft reconstruction. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17: 1267-72. 42. Serra e Silva FM, Ricardo de AlbergariaBarbosa J, Mazzonetto R. Clinical evaluation of association of bovine organic osseous matrix and bovine bone morphogenetic protein versus autogenous bone graft in sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:931-5. 43. Consolaro A. The four mechanisms of dental resorption initiation. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:7-9. Corresponding author: Dr Renato Savi de Carvalho Rua Rio Branco 19-45 17014-037, Vila América Bauru-SP BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected] Copyright ª 2014 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Savi de Carvalho et al
