-
Brazilian Oral Research 2018This study compared the survival rate of dental implants, amount of marginal bone loss, and rates of complications (biological and prosthetic) between short implants and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study compared the survival rate of dental implants, amount of marginal bone loss, and rates of complications (biological and prosthetic) between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number (CRD42017073929). Two reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials, comparisons between short implants and long implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation in the same study, and follow-up for >6 months. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. The search identified 1366 references. After applying the inclusion criteria, 11 trials including 420 patients who received 911 dental implants were considered eligible. No significant difference was observed in the survival rate [p = 0.86; risk ratio (RR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-2.52] or in the amount of marginal bone loss (p = 0.08; RR: -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10 to 0.01). However, higher rates of biological complications for long implants associated with maxillary sinus augmentation were observed (p < 0.00001; RR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.10-0.41), whereas a higher prosthetic complication rate for short implants was noted (p = 0.010; RR: 3.15; 95%CI: 1.32-7.51). Short implant placement is an effective alternative because of fewer biological complications and similar survival and marginal bone loss than long implant placement with maxillary sinus augmentation. However, the risk of mechanical complications associated with the prostheses fitted on short implants should be considered.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bias; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30231176
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0086 -
Stomatologija 2018To review all of the possible uses for maxillary sinus lateral wall bony window in an open maxillary sinus lift procedure and to evaluate the influence of each method to... (Review)
Review
AIM
To review all of the possible uses for maxillary sinus lateral wall bony window in an open maxillary sinus lift procedure and to evaluate the influence of each method to the rate of sinus membrane perforations.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed of randomized control studies in English identified in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane online databases, published between 2007.09.01 and 2017.09.01. Surgeries had to be performed in vivo, for patients over 18 years old. A study had to have at least 10 sinus lifting procedures, had to detail how the bony window was used and had to report the number of Schneiderian membrane perforations.
RESULTS
922 publications were found, out of which 68 were selected for qualitative assessment. 29 of them were selected for quantitative assessment. 4 distinct uses for bony window were found: bony window is elevated into the sinus cavity under the membrane; removed and discarded; repositioned to its original position after the surgery; used as a graft material for sinus lift.
CONCLUSIONS
there is a statistically significant difference of sinus membrane perforations between different uses of the lateral bony window of an open sinus lift procedure. However, due to the lack of publications that investigate the effects of different bony window usage methods, clinical recommendations cannot be drawn from current data.
Topics: Humans; Maxilla; Maxillary Sinus; Osteotomy; Sinus Floor Augmentation
PubMed: 29806654
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Jan 2021The anatomy of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses is one of the most varied in the human body. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence of anatomical... (Review)
Review
The anatomy of the nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses is one of the most varied in the human body. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence of anatomical variations in the sinonasal area. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed on PubMed a literature search from October 2004 until May 2020. The search strategy included the following keywords: ('paranasal sinus' OR 'frontal sinus' OR 'maxillary sinus' AND ('anatomical variants' OR 'anomalies')). Fifty studies were eligible and included in the analysis. Overall, the studies encompassed a total of 18,118 patients included in this review. Most common anatomical variations include agger nasi cells, nasal septum deviation and concha bullosa. Other variations seen in this region are uncinate process variations, paradoxical middle turbinate, Haller, Onodi and supraorbital ethmoid cells, accessory ostia of maxillary sinus. Less common variations include any sinus aplasia, crista galli pneumatization and dehiscence of the optic or maxillary nerve, internal carotid artery and lamina papyracea. Anatomical variations of this region also differ among ethnic groups. This study highlights the amount, variability and significance of most anatomical variants reported in the literature in the last years. It is essential for the sinus surgeon to have a broad spectrum of knowledge not only of "the typical" anatomy but also all the possible anatomical variations. With modern imaging modalities, anatomical variations can be detected, and uneventful pitfalls might be prevented.
PubMed: 33614330
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12727 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2021This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair.
CONCLUSIONS
Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Nasal Mucosa; Prostheses and Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34250560
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00346-7 -
Cells Jul 2023The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique. (Review)
Review
Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using Autologous Platelet Concentrates (Platelet-Rich Plasma, Platelet-Rich Fibrin, and Concentrated Growth Factor) Combined with Bone Graft: A Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
"PRP", "PRF", "L-PRF", "CGF", "oral surgery", "sticky bone", "sinus lift" were the search terms utilized in the databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed, with the Boolean operator "AND" and "OR".
RESULTS
Of these 1534 studies, 22 publications were included for this review.
DISCUSSION
The autologous growth factors released from platelet concentrates can help to promote bone remodeling and cell proliferation, and the application of platelet concentrates appears to reduce the amount of autologous bone required during regenerative surgery. Many authors agree that growth factors considerably enhance early vascularization in bone grafts and have a significantly positive pro-angiogenic influence in vivo when combined with alloplastic and xenogeneic materials, reducing inflammation and postoperative pain and stimulating the regeneration of injured tissues and accelerating their healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Even if further studies are still needed, the use of autologous platelet concentrates can improve clinical results where a large elevation of the sinus is needed by improving bone height, thickness and vascularization of surgical sites, and post-operative healing.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Bone Regeneration; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Fibrin
PubMed: 37443831
DOI: 10.3390/cells12131797 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2020Bone augmentation techniques have increasingly been indicated for re-creating adequate bone height and volume suitable for dental implant sites. This is particularly...
Bone augmentation techniques have increasingly been indicated for re-creating adequate bone height and volume suitable for dental implant sites. This is particularly applicable in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla where sinus perforation (ruptured Schneiderian membrane) is a very common complication and sinus floor elevation or lift is frequently considered a standard procedure. The augmentation of the maxillary sinus can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials. Herein, numerous biomaterials and bone substitutes have been proposed, primarily to sustain the lifted space. In addition, cytokines and growth factors have been used to stimulate angiogenesis, enhance bone formation as well as improve healing and recovery period, either as the sole filling material or in combination with bone substitute materials. Within such, is the family of autologous blood extracts, so-called platelet concentrates, which are simply the "product" resulting from the simple centrifugation of collected whole blood samples of the patient, immediately pre-surgery. Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), a sub-family of platelet concentrates, is a three-dimensional (3-D) autogenous biomaterial obtained, without including anti-coagulants, bovine thrombin, additives, or any gelifying agents during the centrifugation process. Today, it is safe to say that, in implant dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery, PRFs (particularly, the pure platelet-rich fibrin or P-PRF and leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin or L-PRF sub-classes) are receiving the most attention, essentially due to their simplicity, rapidness, user-friendliness/malleability, and cost-effectiveness. Whether used as the sole "bioactive" filling/additive material or combined with bone substitutes, the revolutionary second-generation PRFs have been very often associated with clinical results. Hence, this review aims to provide a 10-years update on the clinical effectiveness of L-PRF when applied/used as the "sole" biomaterial in maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. An electronic search using specific keywords for L-PRF and maxillary sinus augmentation was conducted in three main databases (PubMed-MEDLINE database, Google Scholar and Cochrane library) for the period between January 2009-February 2020. The quest yielded a total of 468 articles. Based on the pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria, only seven articles were deemed eligible and included in the analysis. Surprisingly, of the 5 studies which used de-proteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in combination with L-PRF, 60% acclaimed no significant effects and only 40% declared positive effects. Of the two articles which had used allogenous bone graft, 50% declared no significant effects and 50% acclaimed positive effects. Only one study had used L-PRF as the sole grafting material and reported a positive effect. Likewise, positive effects were reported in one other study using L-PRF in combination with a collagen membrane. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, this review is limited by the inability to perform a proper systematic meta-analysis. Overall, most of the published studies reported results of L-PRF application as a grafting material (sole or adjuvant) in maxillary sinus augmentation and dental implant restorative procedures. Yet, distinct technical processing for L-PRF preparation was noted. Hence, studies should be approached with caution. Here in, in sinus lift and treatment of Schneider membrane, the formation of mature bone remains inconclusive. More studies are eagerly awaited in order to prove the beneficial or detrimental effects of PRFs, in general and L-PRFs, in specific; especially in their tissue regenerative potential pertaining to the promotion of angiogenesis, enhancing of cell proliferation, stimulation of cell migration and autocrine/paracrine secretion of growth factors, as well as to reach a consensus or a conclusive and distinct determination of the effect of leukocytes (and their inclusion) on inflammation or edema and pain; a call for standardization in PRFs and L-PRFs composition reporting and regimenting the preparation protocols.
PubMed: 33330603
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.537138 -
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2022The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review...
BACKGROUND
The use of biologics may be indicated for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and reconstruction (ARR), and implant site development (ISD). The present systematic review aimed to analyze the effect of autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), on the outcomes of ARP/ARR and ISD therapy (i.e., alveolar ridge augmentation [ARA] and maxillary sinus floor augmentation [MSFA]).
METHODS
An electronic search for eligible articles published from January 2000 to October 2021 was conducted. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of ABPs, EMD, rhBMP-2, and rhPDGF-BB for ARP/ARR and ISD were included according to pre-established eligibility criteria. Data on linear and volumetric dimensional changes, histomorphometric findings, and a variety of secondary outcomes (i.e., clinical, implant-related, digital imaging, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) were extracted and critically analyzed. Risk of bias assessment of the selected investigations was also conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 39 articles were included and analyzed qualitatively. Due to the high level of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative analyses were not feasible. Most studies in the topic of ARP/ARR revealed that the use of biologics rendered similar results compared with conventional protocols. However, when juxtaposed to unassisted healing or socket filling using collagen sponges, the application of biologics did contribute to attenuate post-extraction alveolar ridge atrophy in most investigations. Additionally, histomorphometric outcomes were positively influenced by the application of biologics. The use of biologics in ARA interventions did not yield superior clinical or radiographic outcomes compared with control therapies. Nevertheless, ABPs enhanced new bone formation and reduced the likelihood of early wound dehiscence. The use of biologics in MSFA interventions did not translate into superior clinical or radiographic outcomes. It was observed, though, that the use of some biologics may promote bone formation during earlier stages of healing. Only four clinical investigations evaluated PROMs and reported a modest beneficial impact of the use of biologics on pain and swelling. No severe adverse events in association with the use of the biologics evaluated in this systematic review were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Outcomes of therapy after post-extraction ARP/ARR and ARA in edentulous ridges were comparable among different therapeutic modalities evaluated in this systematic review. Nevertheless, the use of biologics (i.e., PRF, EMD, rhPDGF-BB, and rhBMP-2) in combination with a bone graft material generally results into superior histomorphometric outcomes and faster wound healing compared with control groups.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Socket; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Biological Products; Becaplermin; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Alveolar Process; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 35841608
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0069 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Aug 2022
Review
Topics: Enophthalmos; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Paranasal Sinus Diseases; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 35775496
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1598 -
World Journal of Plastic Surgery 2023The purpose of this article was to systematically review maxillary sinus changes after LeFort. We examined and analyzed the anatomical abnormalities that occurred... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this article was to systematically review maxillary sinus changes after LeFort. We examined and analyzed the anatomical abnormalities that occurred following LeFort I osteotomy, as well as the abnormalities of maxillary sinus volume (MSV) before and after the operation.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on various databases, such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus. The articles used were in English and original. This study was conducted until September 2023, and after reviewing the articles, several keywords, such as "Maxillary sinus" and "LeFort I osteotomy", were employed. The obtained data were evaluated based on the PICO framework.
RESULTS
Findings from 15 studies showed that the amount of MSV decreased before and after the operation (considering the three dimensions of the sinus, the measurement was performed linearly). These reduction values differed between men and women, with men having a greater reduction. As is the case with other operations, there were some side effects associated with this type of operation that some patients experienced postoperatively.
CONCLUSION
In both male and female patients, the MSV was reduced after one-piece and multi-segment osteotomies. Nonetheless, one-piece LeFort I osteotomy showed a higher reduction in MSV than the multi-segment osteotomy method, according to this systematic review and meta-analysis.
PubMed: 38226188
DOI: 10.61186/wjps.12.3.3 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2020Sinus augmentation can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials, and to date, there is no quality evidence regarding the augmentation of the sinus floor using... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sinus augmentation can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials, and to date, there is no quality evidence regarding the augmentation of the sinus floor using only platelet concentrates, which can improve the healing period and enhance bone regeneration by stimulating angiogenesis and bone formation. The main objective of this paper was to assess the effect of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation in terms of newly formed bone, augmented bone height, and clinical outcomes and to assess the additional beneficial effects of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in combination with other grafting biomaterials.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled analyses were performed with the Review Manager software.
RESULTS
For sinus elevation only using platelet concentrates, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis. Only one study was a clinical trial, which reported improved outcomes for the allograft group compared to the titanium-PRF (T-PRF) group. A total of 12 studies where PRF was used in addition to grafting biomaterials met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results from meta-analyses provided no additional beneficial effects of PRF in sinus augmentation in terms of bone height and percentage of soft tissue area. There was a statistically significant lower percentage of residual bone substitute material in the PRF (+) group compared to the PRF (-) group. The percentage of newly formed bone was slightly higher in the PRF (+) group, but this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
There is no robust evidence to make firm conclusions regarding the beneficial effects of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation. However, studies have shown favorable outcomes regarding implant survival, bone gain, and bone height. The use of PRF with other grafting biomaterials appears to provide no additional beneficial effects in sinus lift procedures, but they may improve the healing period and bone formation. Well-conducted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the available results to provide recommendations for the clinical practice.
PubMed: 32019255
DOI: 10.3390/ma13030622