-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 Jun 2017This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate survival rates of dental implants placed simultaneously with graft-free maxillary sinus floor elevation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate survival rates of dental implants placed simultaneously with graft-free maxillary sinus floor elevation (GFSFE). Factors influencing amount of vertical bone gain (VBG), protruded implant length (PIL) in sinus at follow-up (PILf), and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) are also evaluated.
METHODS
Electronic and manual searches for human clinical studies on simultaneous implant placement and GFSFE using the lateral window or transcrestal approach, published in the English language from January 1976 to March 2016, were conducted. The random-effects model and mixed-effect meta-regression were used to analyze weighted mean values of clinical parameters and evaluate factors that influenced amount of VBG.
RESULTS
Of 740 studies, 22 clinical studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 864 implants were placed simultaneously with GFSFE at edentulous sites having mean residual bone height of 5.7 ± 1.7 mm. Mean implant survival rate (ISR) was 97.9% ± 0.02% (range: 93.5% to 100%). Weighted mean MBL was 0.91 ± 0.11 mm, and it was significantly associated with the postoperative follow-up period (r = 0.02; R = 43.75%). Weighted mean VBG was 3.8 ± 0.34 mm, and this parameter was affected significantly by surgical approach, implant length, and PIL immediately after surgery (PILi) (r = 2.82, 0.57, 0.80; R = 19.10%, 39.27%, 83.92%, respectively). Weighted mean PILf was 1.26 ± 0.33 mm (range: 0.3 to 2.1 mm).
CONCLUSION
Within limitations of the present systematic review, GFSFE with simultaneous implant placement can achieve satisfactory mean ISR of 97.9% ± 0.02%.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Bone Loss; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Maxilla; Maxillary Sinus; Michigan; Sinus Floor Augmentation
PubMed: 28168901
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.160665 -
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 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2022The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the survival rate of dental implant placed using different maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the survival rate of dental implant placed using different maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques.
SETTING AND DESIGN
PRISMA guidelines were used for this systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Relevant articles were searched from Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane trials. Articles published in English language were selected. Hand search was further conducted. For risk of bias, two tools were used, i.e., Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and new castle Ottawa quality assessment tool for non-RCTs.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
For statistical meta-analysis RevMan 5.4 software was used.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were finalized. All studies were included in the meta-analysis to check the implant survival rate. There is no statistical difference between direct and indirect techniques, and forest plot was derived for direct approach (P = 0.688, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9691) and for indirect approach (P = 0.686 and 95% CI 0.970).
CONCLUSION
There is no statistically significant difference in the survival rate of implant placed using direct or indirect sinus lift approach procedures. Hence, the technique is selected as per the indications given for each direct and indirect procedure.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Restoration Failure; Survival Rate
PubMed: 36511050
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_283_22 -
International Journal of Oral and... Feb 2023The displacement of dental implants into the maxillary sinus is increasingly reported and may lead to serious complications. Better knowledge of this condition could... (Review)
Review
The displacement of dental implants into the maxillary sinus is increasingly reported and may lead to serious complications. Better knowledge of this condition could help clinicians improve their practice, but it is difficult to draw conclusions from the current literature. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to describe the main characteristics of dental implant displacement, as well as its management and temporal evolution over a 31-year period. This review was conducted according to the PRISMA methodology. The PubMed/Scopus electronic databases were searched to December 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. A total of 73 articles reporting 321 patients with displaced dental implants were included. Implants located in the upper first molar site were the most frequently involved (23.7%). Displacement occurred mainly during the first 6 months after implant placement (62.6%). The majority became symptomatic (56.2%), most often due to maxillary sinusitis and/or oroantral communication (44.2%). The surgical approaches to remove displaced implants were the lateral approach (38.1%), the Caldwell-Luc approach (27.2%), and endoscopic nasal surgery (23.1%). This review highlights the importance of preventive measures: avoiding implant displacement by careful pre-implantation radiographic analysis, but also preventing infectious complications through early removal of the displaced implant (PROSPERO CRD42021279473).
Topics: Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Dental Implants; Maxillary Sinusitis; Molar; Endoscopy
PubMed: 35778233
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.06.009