Prevalence, risk factors, and repair mechanism of different forms of sinus membrane perforations in lateral window sinus lift procedure: A retrospective cohort study.
lateral window
repair mechanism
sinus membrane perforation
Journal
Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
04
2021
received:
03
02
2021
accepted:
29
04
2021
pubmed:
20
10
2021
medline:
24
12
2021
entrez:
19
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate prevalences, affecting risk factors and efforts for repair mechanism for different forms of sinus membrane perforations (SMP) during sinus floor elevation (SFE) using the lateral window technique (LWT). For 334/434 patients, SFE undergoing LWT prevalence of SMP was retrospectively evaluated including a subselection based on membrane perforation size (<10 mm: small-moderate/≥10 mm: large) and biotype (BT; thick BT/thin BT) into four subgroups (SMP1: thick BT/small-moderate; SMP2: thin BT/small-moderate; SMP3: thick BT/large; SMP4: thin BT/large). For the various subgroups, patient- and surgery-related/anatomic risk factors affecting SMP were evaluated and the scope of sinus membrane repair (SSMR) mechanisms rated with 1 (easy) to 5 (complex) was compared. For 103/434 SMP (27.6%) in 93/334 patients (30.8%) the prevalence of various forms of SMP differed significantly (p < 0.001) among the four subgroups. SMP4 with a prevalence of 45.6% (n = 47) was the most frequent type, while SMP3 had low prevalence with 4.85% (n = 5). Small/moderate SMPs with thick (SMP1: n = 26) or thin BT (SMP2: n = 23) were seen in 26.2% and 23.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed significant differences between subgroups with large perforations (SMP3/SMP4) and those with small/moderate perforations (SMP1/SMP2) regarding anatomic risk factors such as residual ridge height (p = 0.023) and history of previous oral surgical interventions (OSI; p = 0.026). Most evidently, multivariate analysis showed that induction of large SMP with thin biotype (SMP4) was significantly affected by the presence of sinus septa (p < 0.022, OR: 2.415), reduced residual ridge height (p < 0.001, OR: 1.842), and previous OSI (p < 0.001, OR: 4.545). SSMR differed significantly (p < 0.001) between SMP4 (4.62 ± 0.49) and the subgroups SMP1 (1.11 ± 0.32), SMP2 (1.08 ± 028), and SMP3 (2.2 ± 0.55). The most frequently found type of SMP had characteristics of thin biotype and large size associated with risk factors such as sinus septa, reduced residual ridge, and previous surgical interventions and required challenging repair mechanisms assessing clinical impact.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
821-832Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
von Arx T, Fodich I, Bornstein M, Jensen SS. Perforation of the sinus membrane during sinus floor elevation: a retrospective study of frequency and possible risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:718-726.
Nolan PJ, Freeman K, Kraut R. Correlation between Schneiderian membrane perforation and sinus lift graft outcome: a retrospective evaluation of 359 augmented sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:47-52.
Moreno-Vasquez JC, de Rivera ASG, Gil HS, Mifsut RS. Complication rate in 200 consecutive sinus lift procedures: guidelines for prevention and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:892-901.
Pikos MA. Complications of maxillary sinus augmentation. In: Jensen OT, ed. The Sinus Bone Graft. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Books; 2006:103-113.
Schwarz L, Schiebel V, Hof M, Ulm C, Watzek G, Pommer B. Risk factors of membrane perforation and postoperative complications in sinus floor elevation surgery: review of 407 augmentation procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;73:1275-1282.
Krennmair S, Malek M, Forstner T, Krennmair G, Weinländer M, Hunger S. Risk factor analysis affecting sinus membrane perforation during lateral window maxillary sinus elevation surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:789-798.
Marin S, Kirnbauer B, Rugani P, Payer M, Jakse N. Potential risk factors for maxillary sinus membrane perforation and treatment outcome analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21:66-72.
Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:613-616.
Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Amer. 1986;30:207-229.
Jemt T, Lekholm U. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8:635-640.
Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8:328-343.
Karabuda C, Arisan V, Özyuvaci H. Effects of sinus membrane perforations on the success of dental implants placed in the augmented sinus. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1991-1997.
Ardekian L, Oved-Peleg E, Mactei EE, Peled M. The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:277-282.
Khoury F. Augmentation of the sinus floor with mandibular bone block and simultaneous implantation: a 6-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:557-564.
Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E. The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol. 2004;75:511-516.
Al-Moraissi E, Elsharkawy A, Abotaleb B, Alkebsi K, Al-Motwakel H. Does intraoperative perforation of Schneiderian membrane during sinus lift surgery causes an increased the risk of implants failure? A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:882-889.
Lin YH, Yang YC, Wang HL. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:612-617.
Yilmaz HG, Tözüm TF. Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? J Periodontol. 2012;83:420-425.
Toscano NJ, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS. The effect of piezoelectric use on open sinus lift perforation: a retrospective evaluation of 56 consecutively treated cases from private practices. J Periodontol. 2010;81:167-171.
Proussaef P, Lozada J, Kim J, Rohrer MD. Repair of the perforated sinus membrane with a resorbable collagen membrane: a human study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:413-420.
Testori T, Wallace SS, Del Fabbro M, et al. Repair of large sinus membrane perforations using stabilized collagen barrier membranes: surgical techniques with histologic and radiographic evidence of successs. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28:9-17.
Clementini M, Ottria L, Pandolfi C, Bollero P. A novel technique to close large perforation of sinus membrane. Oral Implantol. 2013;6:11-14.
Pikos MA. Maxillary sinus membrane repair: update on technique for large and complete perforations. Implant Dent. 2008;17:24-31.
Hernandez-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C. Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:91-98.
de Almeida Ferreira CE, Martinelli CB, Novaes AB Jr, et al. Effect of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on implant survival rate: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:401-407.
Froum SJ, Khouly I, Favero G, Cho SC. Effect of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on vital bone formation and implant survival: a retrospective stuidy. J Periodontol. 2013;84:1094-1099.
Janner SF, Caversaccio MD, Dubach P, Sendi P, Buser D, Bornstein MM. Characteristics and dimension of the Schneiderian membrane: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography in patients referred for dental implant surgery in the posterior maxillary. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1446-1453.
Rapani M, Rapani C, Ricci L. Schneider membrane thickness classification evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and its importance in the practability of perforation: retrospective analysis of 200 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54:1106-1110.
Monje A, Diaz KT, Aranda L, Insua A, Garcia-Nogales A, Wang HL. Schneiderian membrane thickness and clinical implications for sinus augmentation: a systematic review and meta-regression analyses. J Periodontol. 2016;87:888-899.
Proussaefs P, Lozada J, Kim J. Effects of sealing the perforated sinus membrane with a resobable collagen membrane: a pilot study in humans. J Oral Implantol. 2003;29:235-241.
Vlassis JM, Fugazzotto PA. A classification system for sinus membrane perforations during augmentation procedures with options for repair. J Periodontol. 1999;70:692-699.
Jensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:263-273.
Nkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl):124-133.
Krennmair S, Weinländer M, Malek M, Forstner T, Krennmair G, Stimmelmayr M. Clinical outcome of implants placed in staged maxillary sinus augmentation using bovine bone mineral mixed with autogenous bone at three different ratios: a 5-year prospective follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:1351-1361.
Krennmair G, Ulm CW, Lugmayr H, Solar P. The incidence, location, and height of maxillary sinus septa in the edentulous and dentate maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;57:667-671.
Becker ST, Terheyden H, Steinriede A, Behrens E, Springer I, Wiltfang J. Prospective observation of 41 perforations of the Schneiderian membrane during sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1285-1289.
Malkinson S, Irinakis T. The influence of interfereing septa on the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforation during maxillary sinus elevation surgery: a retrospective study of 52 consecutive lateral window procedures. J Oral Surg. 2009;2:19-15.
Tükel HC, Tatli U. Risk factors and clinical outcome of sinus membrane perforations during lateral window sinus lifting: analysis of 120 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1189-1194.
Ghasemi S, Fotouhi A, Moslemi N, Chinipardaz Z, Kolahi J, Paknejad M. Intra- and postoperative complications of lateral maxillary sinus augmentation in smokers vs nonsmokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:759-767.
van den Bergh JPA, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJM, Tuinzing DB. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11:256-265.
Cakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Durna D. Relationship among Schneiderian membrane, Underwood's septa, and the maxillary sinus inferior border. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:83-87.
Bornstein MM, Wasmer J, Sendi P, Janner SF, Buser D, von Arx T. Characteristics and dimension of the Schneiderian membrane and apical bone in maxillary molars referred for apical surgery: a comparative radiographic analysis using limited cone beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2012;38:51-57.
Oberli K, Bornstein MM, von Arx T. Periapical surgery and the maxillary sinus: radiographic parameters for clinical outcome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103:848-853.
Stacchi C, Andolsek F, Berton F, Perinetti G, Navarra CO, Di Lenarda R. Intraoperative complications during sinus floor elevation with lateral approach: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:e107-e118.
Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004;24:565-577.
Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:216-240.
Jordi C, Mukkaddam K, Lambrecht JT, Kühl S. Membrane perforation rate in lateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation using conventional rotating instruments and piecoelectric device-a meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2018;29:4.
Barone A, Santini S, Marconcini S, Giacomelli L, Gherlone E, Covani U. Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure: a comparative study: piecoelectric device vs conventional rotative instruments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:511-515.
Monje A, Catena A, Monje F, et al. Maxillary sinus lateral wall thickness and morphologic patterns in the atrophic posterior maxilla. J Perdiodontol. 2014;85:676-682.
Chan HL, Monje A, Suarez F, Benavides E, Wang HL. Palatonasal recess on medial wall of the maxillary sinus and clinical implications for sinus augmentation via lateral window approach. J Perdiodontol. 2013;84:1087-1093.
Bertl K, Mick RB, Heimel P, Gahleitner A, Stavropoulos A, Ulm C. Variation in bucco-palatal maxillary sinus width does not permit a meaningful sinus classification. Cin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:1220-1229.