Radiographic Analysis of Graft Dimensional Changes after Lateral Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with Heterologous Materials and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study in 18 Patients.
biomaterials
lateral procedure
maxillary sinus
sinus augmentation
xenograft
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Apr 2022
22 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
revised:
20
04
2022
accepted:
21
04
2022
entrez:
20
5
2022
pubmed:
21
5
2022
medline:
21
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background: This investigation aimed to radiographically assess the variations of graft dimension following maxillary sinus augmentation by the lateral approach. Methods: Eighteen patients (seven males), with a mean age at surgery of 66.5 ± 9.8 (range 52−82) years, were unilaterally treated. Thirty-five dental implants were positioned in the posterior maxilla simultaneously to grafting with heterologous biomaterials. Intraoral radiographs taken at the time of surgery, after six months, and at the longest follow-up (up to nine years after implant placement) were analyzed. The following distances were measured: mesio-distal width of the graft, vertical distance from implant apex to most coronal level of the graft, distance from the mesial aspect of the (mesial) implant to the mesial graft extension; distance from the distal aspect of the (distal) implant to the distal graft extension, and graft height along the implant axis. The dimensional changes with respect to baseline, after six months and at the longest follow-up were calculated. Results: The patient-based mean follow-up was 38.3 ± 30.1 months (range 12−108 months). The mean residual bone height at the mesial and distal aspect of the implants was 3.19 ± 2.05 mm and 2.65 ± 1.60 mm, respectively (p = 0.38). The mean graft width at baseline was 27.95 ± 5.23 mm, and the mean graft width reduction was 10.2 ± 12.7% (2.98 ± 3.62 mm) and 11.3 ± 14.4% (3.36 ± 4.08 mm) at six months and at the latest follow-up. The change was significant at six months (p = 0.005), but did not show significant further variation (p = 0.11). On the mesial and distal aspect, the mean graft extension decreased by 1.56 ± 2.67 mm and 0.84 ± 2.71 mm at the latest follow-up. No significant difference between mesial and distal changes was found (p = 0.24), suggesting that the biomaterial is resorbed homogeneously on both sides. The mean graft height was 11.92 ± 2.53 mm at baseline and decreased by 9.3 ± 9.05% (1.11 ± 1.09 mm) at six months (p < 0.001). Non-significant further changes were found at the latest follow-up (p = 0.10). Conclusions: after early remodeling, heterologous bone substitutes showed a good dimensional stability in the mid-term for maxillary sinus augmentation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35591390
pii: ma15093056
doi: 10.3390/ma15093056
pmc: PMC9103388
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jan-Feb;12(1):88-94
pubmed: 9048460
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2594670
pubmed: 28349056
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021 Mar 31;12(1):e1
pubmed: 33959236
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Aug;51(8):857-62
pubmed: 8393101
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Aug;21(4):662-668
pubmed: 31140209
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 May-Jun;21(3):433-8
pubmed: 16796287
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Mar-Apr;12(2):194-9
pubmed: 9109269
J Periodontol. 2021 Feb;92(2):263-272
pubmed: 32715479
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Nov-Dec;14(6):835-40
pubmed: 10612920
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):866-72
pubmed: 21841997
Implant Dent. 2018 Feb;27(1):111-118
pubmed: 29210825
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Jun;15(3):339-45
pubmed: 15142097
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989 Mar;47(3):238-42
pubmed: 2646403
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(5):523-8
pubmed: 8112791
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018 Jun 28;48(3):174-181
pubmed: 29984047
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jan;49(1):107-120
pubmed: 31230768
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jul;29(7):725-740
pubmed: 29876968
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1998 Dec;18(6):528-43
pubmed: 10321168
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Jan;48(1):27-32; discussion 33
pubmed: 2294209
Implant Dent. 2006 Jun;15(2):197-207
pubmed: 16766904
J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Dec;39(6):274-82
pubmed: 24516817
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011 Mar;13(1):13-8
pubmed: 19438954
J Craniofac Surg. 1997 Nov;8(6):506-11
pubmed: 9477838
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Feb;92(2):409-19
pubmed: 19904820
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Apr;12(2):135-43
pubmed: 11251663
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jul;20(7):691-700
pubmed: 19453567
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005 Jul;74(1):448-57
pubmed: 15889429
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):205-16
pubmed: 21453395
J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 27;10(21):
pubmed: 34768518
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Oct;31(10):959-967
pubmed: 32716570
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Dec;23(12):1369-76
pubmed: 22092377
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Nov 29;:
pubmed: 34857390
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995 Oct;33(5):312-8
pubmed: 8555150
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998 Apr;9(2):107-16
pubmed: 9663038
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012 Oct;32(5):581-9
pubmed: 22754899
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Nov-Dec;34(6 Suppl. 3):1-10
pubmed: 33386051
Materials (Basel). 2022 Apr 19;15(9):
pubmed: 35591298
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Dec;10(4):264-70
pubmed: 18241216
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Aug;21(4):204-9
pubmed: 1328414