Sinus bone formation and implant survival after sinus membrane elevation and implant placement: a 1- to 6-year follow-up study

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 1200-1212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Cricchio ◽  
Lars Sennerby ◽  
Stefan Lundgren
2011 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio L. Borges ◽  
Rafael O. Dias ◽  
Adriano Piattelli ◽  
Tatiana Onuma ◽  
Luciana Ap. Gouveia Cardoso ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 1803-1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio ◽  
Liziany David Cardoso ◽  
Leandro Junqueira de Oliveira ◽  
Mário Nazareno Favato ◽  
Flávio Ricardo Manzi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
G. C. Rajkumar ◽  
Santosh Nandimath ◽  
Pallavi K ◽  
Aaby Abraham ◽  
Nandan Paul

Brief Background Rehabilitation of edentulous posterior atrophic maxilla has always been an exigent task in the field Implantology. Studies have shown, the use of Choukron’s platelet rich fibrin as a sole grafting material in sinus floor and immediate implant placement leading to bone formation in the peri-implant region. Purpose of the Study This study was conducted as novel research where, Direct Sinus Membrane elevation and simultaneous Implant placement without any bone graft resulted in bone formation in sub-antral space. This study compares and evaluates the bone formation with the help of Cone Beam CT Scan (CBCT) in sub-antral space following direct sinus membrane elevation and simultaneous implant placement and platelet rich fibrin as the sole graft. Materials and Methods 48 patients who fulfill the inclusion criteria were divided as Group I- direct sinus membrane elevation and implant placement without any graft and Group II- direct sinus membrane elevation and implant placement along with PRF as sole graft Results and Analysis Unpaired‘t test’ was used where, we ‘p’ value was compared with the level of significance. On comparing the peri-implant bone density in Hounsefield units, in CBCT scans; the bone density was more in group II which was statistically significant (p<0.05). Summary and Conclusions PRF has proved to be a valuable autologous augmenting material in direct sinus membrane elevation and simultaneous implant placement in edentulous posterior maxilla. Key Words Hounsefield Units, Sub-antral space, Peri-implant, Cone Beam CT Scan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Ma ◽  
Chaoan Wu ◽  
Miaoting Shao

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document