Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Bone Formation after Sinus Membrane Elevation and
Simultaneous Placement of Implants without Grafting
Materials – A Systematic Review
Tamara Thulin
Kristina Mosally
Tutor prof. Stefan Lundgren
Umeå Universitet
2
ABSTRACT
Background: Rehabilitation of the atrophied edentulous maxilla is complicated.
Often the residual bone height is insufficient for implant placement due to crestal
bone resorption and pneumatization of the sinus. The most common treatment has
been a two-stage surgery using autogenous or synthetic grafting materials placed in
the maxillary sinus before implant therapy. The sinus lift technique was introduced by
Boyne et al. (1980) and much research has been done to evaluate this technique where
the implants have been placed emerging into the sinus without grafting.
This paper consists of a review of the literature available on sinus membrane
elevation with simultaneous implant placement without the use of grafting materials
and a comparison between lateral approach sinus floor elevation (LASFE) and
osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE).
Materials & Methods: PubMed was used as database to search for articles. Also,
relevant journals and systematic reviews were evaluated. Clinical studies with sinus
lift without grafting materials with simultaneous implant placement were included. A
minimum of 6 months follow-up was an inclusion criteria. Experimental studies and
studies with less than ten implants were excluded.
Results: 22 articles were included, nine studies using LASFE and 13 using OSFE.
The implant survival rate was 98.9% and 97.9% respectively. The MBL was 0.4 –
2.1±0.5 mm for LASFE and 0.2±0.8 – 1.4±0.2 mm for OSFE. New bone formation
was 1.7±2.0 – 7.9±3.6 mm and 2.2±1.7 – 4.5±1.9 mm respectively.
Conclusion: This review shows that grafting materials are not necessary to achieve a
high implant survival rate. Some advantages with the less invasive non-grafting
method are a decreased patient discomfort and a shorter treatment time.
Both LASFE and OSFE without grafting have good outcomes. The surgeon should
choose technique considering personal experience and the individual patient situation.
3
INTRODUCTION
Tooth loss can be caused by dental caries and periodontal disease, but also by trauma
and other diseases in the oral cavity (Lesolang et al., 2009). The loss of teeth results
in a resorption of the alveolar crestal bone and in the posterior maxilla in some cases
it also triggers the maxillary sinus to expand (Sharan and Madjar, 2008). The crestal
bone resorption in combination with the pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus leads
to a reduced alveolar bone height in the posterior maxilla (Borges et al., 2011).
Implant therapy is a common way of rehabilitating this area. However, to achieve
good primary and secondary implant stability, the treatment is dependent on a certain
amount of crestal bone to be successful (Corbella et al., 2013). Therefore, different
methods have been practiced to reconstruct the edentulous maxilla with a severely
resorbed crestal bone height with implant therapy.
One treatment method is to increase the volume of the bone by either grafting the area
with synthetic or allogen bone, or to use an autogenous transplant. This is a two-stage
method and was introduced by Tatum (1977) and Boyne et al. (1980) among others.
The graft is, after surgery, left to heal and controlled by radiographs before replacing
lost teeth with implants.
Unfortunately, harvesting autogenous bone often causes much discomfort for the
patient and is also related to several risks. One risk is morbidity in the area where the
graft is harvested. Other risks are postoperative bleeding and increased risk for
infection (Boffano and Forouzanfar, 2014). Furthermore, cases of acute maxillary
sinusitis have been reported (Alkan et al., 2008) and also cases of hematomas,
disturbed wound healing and sequestration of bone in the sinus (Timmenga et al.,
2001). A disadvantage using non-autogenous grafting materials such as BioOss;
derived bovine bone, which is very similar to human bone, is the cost. Since the
rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implants is already an expensive
treatment, using grafting materials will add to the cost resulting in a greater financial
burden for the patient (Thor et al., 2007). Treating the edentulous maxilla without
bone grafting would have certain benefits such as a shorter overall treatment time,
more cost efficiency and a less invasive procedure.
4
Some studies have shown that placement of the implant in to the sinus without
grafting materials can stimulate new bone formation in the sinus cavity (Lundgren et
al., 2004). This is possible when a blood clot is isolated in an enclosed space, where
the grafting materials usually is placed. The blood cells induce new bone formation
by stimulating the bone precursor cells to evolve to osteoclasts. The activated
osteoclasts in their turn activate the bone forming osteoblasts to start producing bone
(Borges et al., 2011). Two techniques have been identified; the lateral technique
(LASFE) and the osteotome technique (OSFE).
With the lateral technique a window is opened in the lateral sinus wall (Figure 2) into
the maxillary sinus with care taken to avoid tearing of the sinus membrane. The sinus
membrane is then carefully dissected off the bone walls and held up while the implant
is placed into the sinus cavity through the alveolar crest. The sinus membrane, also
called the Schniderian membrane, is then positioned to rest on the implant, which will
function as a tent pole. The bony wall is replaced and the mucoperiost flap is sewed
back at its place (Lundgren et al., 2004). The membrane, the sinus floor and the
lateral wall form an enclosed space for the blood clot, which stimulates new bone
formation.
The osteotome technique is based on a crestal approach (Figure 3). This technique is
described in a report by Bruschi et al. (1998). The incision is made on the alveolar
crest and the implant preparation in the bone is made with a regular implant drill.
Different osteotomes are then used to elevate the Schniderian membrane on the sinus
floor through the prepared entrance. When the implant is placed, it lifts the membrane
and holds it up with the aim to keep the membrane intact. All implants have a flat-top
design which reduces the risk of perforating the Schniderian membrane when placing
the implant. However, perforations can be caused while dissecting the membrane
from the bone wall in the sinus if the surgeon is incautious.
In events where the membrane is perforated the size of the perforation decides
whether it needs to be repaired or can be left to heal (Thor et al., 2007). Some studies
have shown that sinus membrane perforations have no impact on the implant survival
rate if treated appropriately. Apart from the membrane perforation, there is no other
evidence of long-term implant or sinus-related complications after sinus elevation
5
with simultaneous implant placement when using either the osteotome or the lateral
technique (Al-Almaie et al., 2013).
The residual bone height at the implant placement site is of great importance when
choosing implant length when using both OSFE and LASFE techniques. A lower
RBH requires a shorter implant. According to Fenner et al. (2009), a more predictable
osseointegration is attained if the RBH is higher than 6 mm, although RBH lower than
4 mm did not hinder osseointegration of the implant. Implants placed at sites with a
lower RBH than 6 mm had more failures. Also, the crestal bone loss was significantly
lower at sites where the RBH was higher than 8 mm.
When an implant is installed, there is always some loss of crestal bone at the implant
site. This phenomenon is called “crestal bone loss”. There are no full investigations of
the factors that cause this bone loss but plaque accumulation around the abutment has
been discussed, as well as subgingival placement of the implant abutment interface
(Barboza et al., 2002). In cases where the crestal bone loss is high this can lead to
implant failure.
Different methods can be used when evaluating the stability of a dental implant. To
evaluate the primary stability of the implant, the resonance frequency analysis (RFA)
can be used. Using RFA, the level of osseointegration of the implant is measured. A
transducer is connected to the implant, which produces a vibration at the abutment
site. The vibration that appears in the implant is then analyzed and translated into an
ISQ (implant stability quotient) value (Meredith et al., 1997). ISQ values for implants
that are successfully integrated range from 57 to 82 (Park et al., 2011; Degidi et al.,
2012).
The insertion torque is another method to evaluate primary implant stability. The
torque value is a measurement of the bone quality at the implant site, the cutting
ability of the implant and the friction between the implant surface and the bone. The
torque value is measured in Newton. The insertion torque is measured continuously
whilst inserting the implant. Good bone quality, high friction between the implant and
the bone and a wide diameter of the implant compared to the prepared bone site are
factors that result in a high insertion torque. A high insertion torque signifies good
primary stability of the implant (Park et al., 2011).
6
A method to evaluate the secondary implant stability is to measure the mean bone
gain on the sinus floor. The bone height is measured at baseline and thereafter at
different follow-up periods. The bone gain or loss is then possible to calculate. For
these measurements different radiographs are needed. Intraoral radiographs can be
used, although it can be difficult to compare bone height at baseline and at follow-up
as this requires that the radiographs are taken from exactly the same angle. With the
use of a CBCT the precision of the measurements is much higher. Also, it allows for a
3D-analysis of the sinus structures (Fornell et al., 2012).
Implants can be either tapered or not. There are also different implant surfaces to
choose from when planning the implant treatment. Some implants are smooth-
surfaced whilst other are rough on the surface. Rough implant surfaces can be
achieved by blasting, acid etching or using different coatings (Cochran DL, 1999).
The implant shape and surface can have an impact on the implant stability and the
amount of new bone formation, which is reflected on in the discussion.
The aim of this study is to investigate the bone formation in the sinus elevation
procedure without the use of grafting materials and simultaneous placement of
implants. It also intends to compare the lateral and the osteotome techniques, to
discuss which of the methods is more preferable and to evaluate the clinical outcome
of the method for sinus membrane elevation with simultaneous implant placement
without the use of grafting materials.
MATERIALS & METHODS
PubMed is a database containing scientific articles, primarily on life science and
biomedical topics. This database was used to search for published articles about the
sinus lift procedure. Different key words were used such as “sinus floor elevation”,
“osseointegration” and “maxillary sinus”. The key words were inserted in the
PubMed search-builder as medical subject headings (MeSH). MeSH-terms are used
when searching for scientific articles as a thesaurus to facilitate the search process.
7
Search strategy:
The first search was to find MeSH-terms related to our subject. The MeSH-terms
found and used for further searching were; ”paranasal sinuses”, ”membranes”,
”osteogenesis”, ”dental implants”, ”maxillary sinus”, ”sinus elevation”,
”osseointegrated implants”, ”maxillary sinus floor augmentation”, ”bone formation”,
”sinus membrane”, ”sinus membrane lift” and ”implant therapy”. These MeSH-terms
were combined in different constellations and used in the PubMed search builder. The
combinations used were:
“paranasal sinuses” AND “membranes” AND ”osteogenesis” AND ”dental
implants”
”dental implants” AND ”maxillary sinus” AND “membranes”
“osteogenesis” AND “paranasal sinuses”
“osteogenesis” AND “maxillary sinus” AND “dental implants”
These combinations yielded 413 articles.
The advanced search function in PubMed was also used. Here, the search was
restricted to only “Title/Abstract” in the builder field. The following combinations
were used:
“sinus elevation” AND “dental implants”
“osseointegrated implants” AND “maxillary sinus”
“maxillary sinus floor augmentation” AND “bone formation” AND “sinus
membrane”
“maxillary sinus” AND “sinus membrane elevation” AND “bone formation”
AND “dental implants”
These combinations yielded 72 new articles.
The language of the studies in the search was restricted to English.
8
Defining the criteria
Some articles were directly excluded after reading only their titles, as they were not
relevant to the subject. Abstracts of the articles not excluded at the first stage were
read. Thereafter further articles were excluded based on irrelevance. At this stage
there were 51 articles left, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined.
Inclusion criteria
Studies on sinus elevation with and without bone graft were considered. Also, studies
on implants placed in the maxillary sinus regardless of number of implants placed in
the same sinus were considered. Studies made on less than ten implants were
excluded as well as studies with a follow-up period of less than 6 months. Studies on
sinus elevation without simultaneous implant placement were not relevant for this
review and were also excluded, as were experimental studies.
Twenty-five articles were included for full-text reading. After reading these, three
more articles were excluded, as they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria.
After summarizing all articles, a table for the results was made in excel. All data was
inserted in the tables.
Level of evidence
There are different levels of scientific evidence in studies depending on how a study
is designed (Figure 1). The highest level of evidence is a meta-analysis. A meta-
analysis is a statistical method, where the results from different independent original
studies are pooled together. All the studies have the same hypothesis and the same
study design, with the aim to identify patterns and differences of different treatments.
The second highest level of evidence is a systematic review. It differs from the meta-
analysis in the presentation of the studies included. A search strategy is presented for
others to replicate the search and find the same articles. Also, inclusion criteria are
defined to narrow the search. In a systematic review the included studies are
presented individually in a table or a graph (Uman, 2011). When a systematic review
results in several articles with comparable outcomes, a meta-analysis can be made.
The highest level of evidence in an original study is a randomized controlled trial
(RCT) (Bolton, 2001). The study is designed to decrease the risk of bias as the
9
participants are randomized into either a test-group or a control group without
knowing which group they belong to. This study design is called a blinded study.
Sometimes RCTs are double-blinded which has an even higher level of evidence. The
clinicians in a double-blinded study are not aware of which participants belong to
which group (Si et al., 2013).
This paper is a systematic review. Due to the different study designs in the included
articles, a meta-analysis could not be made. Of the 22 studies included we had three
randomized controlled trials (RCT), five prospective studies, four retrospective
studies, one case-series report and one follow-up study. In eight of the clinical studies
the study type was not defined. Since this review includes three RCTs, the evidence
level is high (Ib). The highest evidence level (Ia) is reached when including a meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials, which was not the case in this review
(Shekelle et al., 1999).
Ethical considerations
Since this paper is a systematic review and is based on previous patient studies, there
were no ethical dilemmas in the compilation of the patient data.
RESULTS
A summary of the article selection is shown in Figure 4. After the first search, 51
articles were selected for abstract reading. Thereafter, 25 articles were applicable to
the inclusion criteria. All 25 articles were read in full-text, which lead to an exclusion
of another three articles leaving a total of 22 articles included in this review.
A compilation of all data is presented in Table 1. The studies are divided into two
different tables presenting the different techniques used when elevating the sinus
membrane; LASFE (lateral approach sinus floor elevation) (Table 2) and OSFE
(osteotome sinus floor elevation) (Table 3).
10
LASFE
The studies on LASFE are presented in Table 2. Here, a total of nine articles were
included. Two of these were comparative studies of implant installation with and
without grafting in the sinus. The articles studied included a total of 618 implants
placed in sinuses with simultaneous elevation using the lateral technique. Implant
length varied from 9 to 18 mm and the mean residual bone height (RBH) ranged from
4,0 to 7.5±2.2 mm. The mean follow-up time was 23 months with 6 months as the
shortest follow-up time and 5 years as the longest. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was
measured in four of the studies and varied from 0.4 to 2.1±0.5 mm. Bone regeneration
was detected in all studies ranging from 1.7±2,0 to 7.9±3.6. In cases where ISQ was
registered the implants showed good primary stability. Sinus perforations were noted
in three of the studies. The mean implant survival rate was 98.9%.
OSFE
The studies on OSFE are presented in Table 3. Here, a total of 13 articles were
included. Three of the studies compared sinus elevation with and without grafting.
Altogether 542 implants placed using no grafting materials were studied in the
articles. Implant length varied from 6,0 to 14.5 mm and the mean RBH ranged from
2.4±0.9 to 10.4±0.7 mm. The shortest follow-up time was 9 months and the longest
was 5 years, resulting in a mean follow-up time of 23.3 months. After implant
installation the MBL was measured and ranged from 0.2±0.8 to 1.4±0.2 mm, although
this was not measured in two of the studies. Similar to the LASFE technique new
bone formation (NBF) was detected and registered ranging from 2.2±1.7 to 4.5±1.9
mm. In two of the studies NBF was not measured but the results were predictable.
Sinus perforations were noted in seven of the studies (Table 3). All studies together
had an overall mean survival rate of 97.9%.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review, where sinus membrane elevation with simultaneous implant
placement without the use of grafting materials has been studied, shows that a high
11
implant survival rate can be achieved without grafting materials (Table 1). New bone
formation around the implant in the sinus cavity can be predicted using either LASFE
or OSFE (Table 2 and 3).
Comparing the two techniques, LASFE and OSFE, this review shows that the
marginal bone loss was greater using the LASFE technique. Using the LASFE
technique the MBL varied from 0.4 to 2.1±0.5 mm, whereas with the OSFE technique
the MBL varied from 0.2±0.8 to 1.4±0.2 mm. Since the LASFE technique requires a
mucoperiostal flap and is more invasive than the OSFE technique, the expected
inflammation during healing is greater than the inflammation after implant placement
with OSFE. This inflammation can cause a more pronounced bone resorption, which
may explain why the MBL was greater in the studies where LASFE technique was
used.
However, the LASFE technique yielded more new bone formation (7.9±3.6 mm) than
the OSFE technique (4.5±1.9 mm). The dissection of the Schneiderian membrane
from the sinus wall using LASFE technique may yield a larger space for the blood to
accumulate than the space using OSFE technique. A greater amount of blood cells can
result in a higher activation of osteoclasts, which eventually leads to more osteoblast
stimulation, and hence, more new bone formation. The survival rates between the two
techniques were nevertheless comparable.
Perforations of the Schneiderian membrane were not presented in all the studies
(Table 1). Still perforations were observed using both techniques. Smaller
perforations did not seem to affect the implant survival rate (Schmidlin et al., 2008).
Implants in sinus cavities with larger perforations, however, were often excluded from
the studies (Si et al., 2013), meaning that large membrane perforations could have a
negative impact on the implant survival rate.
The OSFE technique seems to be the most comfortable option from a patient point of
view (Nedir et al., 2013). The technique is less invasive and no mucoperiostal flap is
needed, thus the patient discomfort, implant healing time and postoperative pain are
most likely decreased. The disadvantages with the OSFE technique could be a limited
view of the operation field, which can lead to unnoticed accidental membrane
12
perforations resulting in a lower survival rate. Also, the OSFE technique makes it
difficult to repair eventual perforations of the sinus membrane.
Using the LASFE technique, the surgeon has a better view of the operation field.
Dissection of the Schneiderian membrane is easier and perforations of the membrane
can easily be noticed and repaired when occurring. Since this technique is more
invasive it is also more technique sensitive and more dependent on the surgeons
skills. Also, the postoperative discomfort for the patient is greater due to the necessity
of a mucoperiostal flap and additional drilling in the bone when creating the lateral
window.
When using grafting materials, the golden standard is to use autogenous bone, which
is correlated with donor-site morbidity, uncontrolled resorption and limited
availability (Borges et al., 2011). However, Nedir et al. (2013) concluded that the use
of grafting materials resulted in a greater bone gain, although it was not a prerequisite
for new bone formation. The study by Lai et al. (2010) showed that the use of grafting
materials had no significant impact on the implant survival rate compared to sinus
elevation without grafting materials, but the grafting material could be used to
maintain the space under the Schneiderian membrane. This review shows that there is
no need for grafting materials to achieve a predictable result with good implant
survival and new bone formation. Also, using the LASFE and OSFE techniques
without grafting materials can reduce additional treatment cost and greater patient
discomfort can be avoided.
The influence of the implant shape and surface on new bone formation and implant
stability has been discussed in some of the articles included in this review. According
to Nedir et al. (2013) the use of tapered implants gave better primary stability and less
crestal bone loss than non-tapered implants. Moreover, the tapered shape of the
implant could prevent the implant from sinking into the sinus when loaded (Kim et
al., 2013). Cochran (1999) concluded that a rough implant surface lead to a better
contact between the bone and the implant compared to smooth surfaces. Still,
Cochrane also reached the conclusion that both smooth and rough titanium implants
could achieve high success rates, as well as hydroxyl apatite-coated implants.
13
The choice of technique between LASFE and OSFE has been dependent on the
residual bone height. Some authors (Corbella et al., 2013, Pjetursson et al., 2009)
have shown that the OSFE technique is the method of choice when RBH is greater
than 5 mm and dissuade the use of OSFE when the RBH is less. The limited view of
the operation field has been discussed as a disadvantage with the OSFE technique as
it demands a more experienced surgeon to achieve a successful treatment result if
RBH < 5 mm. The LASFE technique has been the recommended technique when
RBH < 5 mm as it facilitates the implant placement thanks to a better view of the
operation field (Corbella et al., 2013). However, Nedir et al. (2013) showed that the
osteotome technique could be used even in severely atrophic maxilla with good
outcome.
It seems to be more convenient to use OSFE when RBH is > 5 mm, but Nedir et al.
(2009, 2013) and Al-Almaie (2013) have shown that OSFE is also applicable in cases
where RBH < 5 mm. This implies that there is no correlation between RBH and
choice of technique. If this is the case, LASFE technique should be used only in cases
where a good view of the operation field is required, since this method is more
invasive and causes more patient discomfort than OSFE. However, the surgeon
should always consider his or hers experience and knowledge before choosing
technique and also take into consideration the number of implants intended to be
placed in the same sinus. The LASFE technique can be preferable when placing
numerous implants, as the view of the operation field is more favorable.
The correlation between implant survival rate and RBH has been discussed in many
articles. In a study by Lai et al. (2010) there was no significant difference in survival
rate with implants placed in sites with RBH < 4 mm and implants placed in sites with
a greater RBH. However, Pjetursson et al. (2008) reported that the implant survival
rate was significantly lower in sites with RBH < 4 mm. This was also shown earlier in
a study by Rosen et al. (1999) where the survival rate dropped from 96% to 85.7%
when RBH was < 4 mm. A study made by Summers (1998) showed similar results,
where two out of six implants placed in sites with RBH lower than 4 mm where lost.
In conclusion, the implant survival rate can be affected by many different factors and
RBH cannot be singled out as the only factor for implant survival.
Some authors have shown in their studies that the RBH can affect the outcome of
NBF as the new bone formation is dependent on the amount of pressure that the
14
crestal bone is exposed to during implant installation. The pressure is measured in
microstrains. According to Kim et al. (2013), the bone formation is greater than the
bone resorption when the pressure on the bone is between 1500 and 3000
microstrains, which will result in a more pronounced NBF. However, microstrains
ranging from 50 to 1500 result in equilibrium between bone formation and bone
resorption, leading to a less pronounced NBF. Kim et al. (2013) and Balleri et al.
(2010) have both shown in their studies that RBH < 5 mm resulted in greater NBF
than in sites with RBH > 5 mm. In sites with RBH < 5 mm the occlusal load was in
the range favourable for new bone formation. A thicker bone (> 5 mm RBH) is more
tolerate to pressure, hence the load will not be enough to reach microstrains favorable
to new bone formation.
In this systematic review, there was no significant difference in implant survival rate
between implants placed in sites with RBH < 4 mm and implants placed in sites with
RBH > 4 mm. Also, a more reduced RBH may result in greater NBF. However, there
are yet relatively few publications on LASFE and OSFE compared to the traditional
two-stage technique involving grafting materials.
Conclusion
Both LASFE and OSFE without the use of grafting materials have good outcomes and
are predictable. The advantages with these graftless techniques are many. For one,
they are less invasive as no graft needs to be harvested in another area of the body,
which leads to less morbidity and a decreased risk for complications. Also, the overall
treatment time is shorter and the techniques are more cost effective compared to the
traditional technique using grafting materials. The implant survival rates are high and
there is no need for grafting materials to achieve new bone formation. The surgeon
should choose technique, LASFE or OSFE, considering personal experience and
knowledge and also take into account the individual patient situation.
15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank our supervisor professor Stefan Lundgren for guidance and
help throughout this process. He has been helpful and supportive whenever we have
encountered obstacles during the compilation of this review. We would also like to
thank Sofia Lundgren for providing us with information that facilitated our work
process.
16
REFERENCES
Alkan A, Celebi N, Baş B (2008). Acute maxillary sinusitis associated with internal
sinus lifting: report of a case. Eur J Dent 2: 69–72.
AL-Almaie S, Kavarodi AM, Alfaidhi A (2013). Maxillary sinus functions and
complications with lateral window and osteotome sinus floor elevation procedures
followed by dental implants placement: a retrospective study in 60 patients. J
Contemp Dent Pract 14: 405–413.
Al-Almaie S (2013). Staged osteotome sinus floor elevation for progressive site
development and immediate implant placement in severely resorbed alveolar bone: a
case report. Case Rep doi: 10.1155/2013/310931.
Balleri P, Veltri M, Nuti N, Ferrari M (2012). Implant placement in combination with
sinus membrane elevation without biomaterials: a 1-year study on 15 patients. Clin
Implant Dent Relat Res 14: 682–689.
Barboza EP, Caúla AL, Carvalho WR (2002). Crestal bone loss around submerged
and exposed unloaded dental implants: a radiographic and microbiological descriptive
study. Implant Dent 11:162-9.
Becker ST, Terheyden H, Steinriede A, Behrens E, Springer I, Wiltfang J (2008).
Prospective observation of 41 perforations of the Schneiderian membrane during
sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 19: 1285–1289.
Boffano P, Forouzanfar T (2014). Current concepts on complications associated with
sinus augmentation procedures. J Craniofac Surg 25: 210–212.
Bolton JE (2001).The evidence in evidence-based practice: what counts and what
doesn't count? J Manipulative Physiol Ther 24: 362-366.
17
Borges FL, Dias RO, Piattelli A, Onuma T, Gouveia Cardoso LA, Salomão M,
Scarano A, Ayub E, Shibli JA (2011). Simultaneous sinus membrane elevation and
dental implant placement without bone graft: a 6-month follow-up study. J
Periodontol 82: 403–412.
Boyne PJ, James RA (1980). Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous
marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 38: 613-6.
Bruschi GB, Scipioni A, Calesini G, Bruschi E (1998). Localized management of
sinus floor with simultaneous implant placement: a clinical report. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants13: 219–226.
Cochran DL (1999). A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J
Periodontol 70: 1523–1539.
Corbella S, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M (2013). Long-Term Outcomes for the
Treatment of Atrophic Posterior Maxilla: A Systematic Review of Literature. Clin
Implant Dent Relat Res doi: 10.1111/cid.12077.
Cricchio G, Imburgia M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S (2014). Immediate Loading of
Implants Placed Simultaneously with Sinus Membrane Elevation in the Posterior
Atrophic Maxilla: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study on 10 Patients. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res 16: 609-17.
Cricchio G, Sennerby L, Lundgren S (2011). Sinus bone formation and implant
survival after sinus membrane elevation and implant placement: a 1- to 6-year follow-
up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 22: 1200–1212.
Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A (2012). Primary stability determination by means of
insertion torque and RFA in a sample of 4,135 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
14: 501–507.
18
Ellegaard B, Kølsen-Petersen J, Baelum V (1997). Implant therapy involving
maxillary sinus lift in periodontally compromised patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:
305–315.
Fenner M, Vairaktaris E, Fischer K, Schlegel KA, Neukam FW, Nkenke E (2009).
Influence of residual alveolar bone height on osseointegration of implants in the
maxilla: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 20: 555–559.
Fermergård R, Åstrand P (2008). Osteotome sinus floor elevation and simultaneous
placement of implants--a 1-year retrospective study with Astra Tech implants. Clin
Implant Dent Rel Res 10: 62-69.
Fermergård R, Åstrand P (2012). Osteotome sinus floor elevation without bone grafts-
-a 3-year retrospective study with Astra Tech implants. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 14:
198-205.
Fornell J, Johansson LÅ, Bolin A, Isaksson S, Sennerby L (2012). Flapless, CBCT-
guided osteotome sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant installation. I:
radiographic examination and surgical technique. A prospective 1-year follow-up.
Clin Oral Implants Res 23: 28-34.
Kim H.Y, Yang J.Y, Chung B.Y, Kim J.C, Yeo I.S (2013). Peri-implant bone length
changes and survival rates of implants penetrating the sinus membrane at the posterior
maxilla in patients with limited vertical bone height. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43:58-
63
Lai HC, Zhuang LF, Lv XF, Zhang ZY, Zhang YX, Zhang ZY (2010). Osteotome
sinus floor elevation with or without grafting: a preliminary clinical trial. Clin Oral
Implants Res 21: 520–526.
Leblebicioglu B, Ersanli S, Karabuda C, Tosun T, Gokdeniz H (2005). Radiographic
evaluation of dental implants placed using an osteotome technique. J Periodontol 76:
385–390.
19
Lesolang RR, Motloba DP. Lalloo R (2009). Patterns and reasons for tooth extraction
at the Winterveldt Clinic: 1998-2002. SADJ 64: 214–215, 218.
Lin IC, Gonzalez AM, Chang HJ, Kao SY, Chen TW (2011). A 5-year follow-up of
80 implants in 44 patients placed immediately after the lateral trap-door window
procedure to accomplish maxillary sinus elevation without bone grafting. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 26: 1079–1086.
Lundgren S, Andersson S, Gualini F, Sennerby L (2004). Bone reformation with sinus
membrane elevation: a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 6: 165–173.
Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L (1997). Resonance frequency
measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of
resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially
dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 8: 226–233.
Nedir R, Bischof M, Vazquez L, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP (2006). Osteotome
sinus floor elevation without grafting material: a 1-year prospective pilot study with
ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 17: 679–686.
Nedir R, Bischof M, Vazquez L, Nurdin N, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP (2009).
Osteotome sinus floor elevation technique without grafting material: 3-year results of
a prospective pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 20: 701–707.
Nedir R, Nurdin N, Khoury P, Perneger T, El Hage M, Bernard JP, Bischof M (2013).
Osteotome sinus floor elevation with and without grafting material in the severely
atrophic maxilla. A 1-year prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Oral
Implants Res 24: 1257-64.
Nedir R, Nurdin N, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bischof M (2009). Placement of tapered
implants using an osteotome sinus floor elevation technique without bone grafting: 1-
year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24: 727–733.
20
Nedir R, Nurdin N, Vazquez L, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bischof M, Bernard JP (2010).
Osteotome sinus floor elevation technique without grafting: a 5-year prospective
study. J Clin Periodontol 37: 1023–1028.
Park J.C, Lee J.W, Kim S.M, Lee J.H (2011). Implant Stability - Measuring Devices
and Randomized Clinical Trial for ISQ Value Change Pattern Measured from Two
Different Directions by Magnetic RFA. Implant Dentistry – A Rapidly Evolving
Practice 5: 111–128. [Online] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/18417/InTech-
Implant_stability_measuring_devices_and_randomized_clinical_trial_for_isq_value_
change_pattern_measured_from_two_different_directions_by_magnetic_rfa.pdf
Pjetursson BE, Rast C, Brägger U, Schmidlin K, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2009).
Maxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or
without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perception. Clin Oral
Implants Res 20: 667–676.
Pjetursson BE, Ignjatovic D, Matuliene G, Brägger U, Schmidlin K, Lang NP (2009).
Transalveolar maxillary sinus floor elevation using osteotomes with or without
grafting material. Part II: Radiographic tissue remodeling. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:
677–683.
Rajkumar GC, Aher V, Ramaiya S, Manjunath GS, Kumar DV (2013). Implant
placement in the atrophic posterior maxilla with sinus elevation without bone
grafting: a 2-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28: 526–530.
Rosen PS, Summers R, Mellado JR, Salkin LM, Shanaman RH, Marks MH,
Fugazzotto PA (1999). The bone-added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique:
multicenter retrospective report of consecutively treated patients. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 14: 853–858.
Schleier P, Bierfreund G, Schultze-Mosgau S, Moldenhauer F, Küpper H, Freilich M
(2008). Simultaneous dental implant placement and endoscope-guided internal sinus
floor elevation: 2-year post-loading outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 19: 1163–1170.
21
Schmidlin PR, Müller J, Bindl A, Imfeld H (2008). Sinus floor elevation using an
osteotome technique without grafting materials or membranes. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 28: 401–409.
Sharan A, Madjar D (2008). Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a
radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23: 48–56.
Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999). Developing clinical
guidelines. West J Med 170: 348-351.
Summers RB (1998). Sinus floor elevation with osteotomes. J Aesthetic Dent 10:
164-171.
Si MS, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Mo JJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC (2013). Osteotome sinus floor
elevation with or without grafting: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin
Periodontol 40: 396–403.
Thor A, Sennerby L, Hirsch JM, Rasmusson L (2007). Bone formation at the
maxillary sinus floor following simultaneous elevation of the mucosal lining and
implant installation without graft material: an evaluation of 20 patients treated with 44
Astra Tech implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65: 64–72.
Timmenga NM, Raghoebar GM, van Weissenbruch R, Vissink A (2001). Maxillary
sinusitis after augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor: a report of 2 cases. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 59: 200–204.
Uman LS (2011). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc
Psychiatry 20: 57–59.
Artikel Year Study Type No. of
Patients No. of
Implants Technique w/wo graft Mean RBH (mm)
Mean Follow-up (months)
Implant Length (mm) MBL (mm) NBF (mm) ISR Perf
Balleri P 2010 Clinical 15 28 LASFE wo 6.2 12 11-15 0.4 5.5 100% 20%
Borges FL 2011 Pros RCT 17 28 LASFE w/wo 5.9±2.9 6 15-18 8.3±2.6/7.9 ± 3.6 96,4%
Cricchio G 2013 Case series report 10 21 LASFE wo 4.4±1.5 24 11.5-13 1.3 6.3±3.3 100% 0%
Cricchio G 2011 Follow-up 84 189 LASFE wo 5.7±2.3 26 13 1.3±0.7 5.2±2.1 98,7% 11,5%
Fermergård R 2008 Retro 36 53 OSFE wo 6.3±0.3 12 9-13 0.4±0.1 96%
Fermergård R 2012 Retro 36 53 OSFE wo 6.3±0.3 36 9-13 0.5±0.1 94%
Fornell J 2012 Pros 14 21 OSFE wo 5.6±2.1 12 10 None 3±2.1 100% 0%
Lai HC 2010 Clinical 202
89/191 OSFE w/wo 4.7±2.1/5.6±2.5 9 6-12 1.2±0.5 2.7±0.9 95,7% 4,3%
Leblebicioglu B 2005 Clinical 40 75 OSFE wo 7 ±1.3 (29)/10.4±0.7(46) 24 11,0±1.7/ 13.5±1.1 3.9±1.9/2.9±1.2 97,3% 3,7%
Lin IC 2011 Clinical 44 80 LASFE wo 5.1±1.5 60 12-15 2.1±0.5 7.4±1.9 100%
Lundgren S 2004 Clinical 10 19 LASFE wo 7±3 12 10-15 Yes 100%
Nedir R 2009 Pros pilot 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 36 6 -10 0.9±0.8 3.1±1.5 100% 16%
Nedir R 2013 Pros RCT 12 37 OSFE w/wo 2.4 ±0.9 12 8 0.4±0.7 /0.6±0.8 5.0±1.3/3.9±1.0 90%/100% 0%
Nedir R 2009 Clinical 32 54 OSFE wo 3.8±1.2 12 8-10 0.2±0.8 2.5 ±1.7 100% 9,3%
Nedir R 2010 Prospective 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 60 6-10 0.8±0.8 3.2±1.3 100% 16%
Nedir R 2006 Prospective pilot 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 12 10 1.2±0.7 2.5±1.2 100% 16%
Pjetursson BE 2009 Clinical 181
88/164 LASFE w/wo 7.5± 2.2 36 4.1 ±2.4/1.7 ±2 97,4% 10,8%
Rajkumar GC 2013 Prospective 28 45 LASFE wo 4-7.5 24 1.2 4.1±1.0 100%
Schleier P 2008 Descriptive retro 30 62 OSFE wo 7.3±3.1 24 10-14 1.5 4.5±1.9 94% 4,8%
Schmidlin PR 2007 Retro 24 24 OSFE wo 5±1.5 17.6±8.4 8.6±1.3 M2.2±1.7/ D2.5±1.5 100% 8,3%
Si MS 2013 RCT 45 21/20 OSFE w/wo 4.6±1.3 36 6-10 1.3 ± 0.5/ 1.4 ± 0.2 3.2±2,0/ 3.1±1.7 95,1% 6,7%
Thor A 2007 Clinical 20 44 LASFE wo 4.6 27.5 9-15 6.5 ± 2.4 97,7% 41%
Table 1: A compilation of the 22 articles. W/wo = with/without graft; all data in orange represent cases with graft. RBH = residual bone height, MBL = marginal bone loss, NBF =
new bone formation, ISR = implant survival rate, perf = number of perforations of the Schneiderian membrane. Numbers in red mark patients and data where grafting materials
have been used.
23
Artikel Year Study Type No. of
Patients No. of Implants Technique w/wo graft Mean RBH
(mm) Mean Follow-up (months)
Implant Length (mm) MBL (mm) NBF (mm) ISR Perf
Balleri P 2010 Clinical 15 28 LASFE wo 6.2 12 11-15 0.4 5.5 100% 20%
Borges FL 2011 Pros RCT 17 28 LASFE w/wo 5.9±2.9 6 15-18 8.3±2.6/7.9±3.6 96,4%
Cricchio G 2013 Case series report 10 21 LASFE wo 4.4±1.5 24 11.5-13 1.3 6.3±3.3 100% 0%
Cricchio G 2011 Follow-up 84 189 LASFE wo 5.7±2.3 26 13 1.3±0.7 5.2±2.1 98,7% 11,5%
Lin IC 2011 Clinical 44 80 LASFE wo 5.1±1.5 60 12-15 2.1±0.5 7.4±1.9 100%
Lundgren S 2004 Clinical 10 19 LASFE wo 7±3 12 10-15 Yes 100%
Pjetursson BE 2009 Clinical 181 88/164 LASFE w/wo 7.5±2.2 36 4.1±2.4/ 1.7±2 97,4% 10,8%
Rajkumar GC 2013 Prospective 28 45 LASFE wo 4-7.5 24 1.2 4.1±1.0 100%
Thor A 2007 Clinical 20 44 LASFE wo 4.6 27.5 9-15 6.5±2.4 97,7% 41%
Table 2: A compilation of studies made using the lateral approach sinus floor elevation technique. W/wo = with/without graft; all data in orange represent cases with graft. RBH =
residual bone height, MBL = marginal bone loss, NBF = new bone formation, ISR = implant survival rate, perf = number of perforations of the Schneiderian membrane. Numbers
in red mark patients and data where grafting materials have been used.
Artikel Year Study Type No. of
Patients No. of Implants Technique w/wo graft Mean RBH
(mm) Mean Follow-up (months)
Implant Length (mm) MBL (mm)
NBF (mm) ISR Perf
Fermergård R 2008 Retro 36 53 OSFE wo 6.3±0.3 12 9-13 0.4±0.1 96%
Fermergård R 2012 Retro 36 53 OSFE wo 6.3±0.3 36 9-13 0.5±0.1 94%
Fornell J 2012 Pros 14 21 OSFE wo 5.6±2.1 12 10 None 3±2.1 100% 0%
Lai HC 2010 Clinical 202 89/191 OSFE w/wo 4.7±2.1/ 5.6±2.5 9 6 -12 1.2±0.5 2.7±0.9 95,7% 4,3%
Leblebicioglu B 2005 Clinical 40 75 OSFE wo 7±1.3(29)/
10.4±0.7(46) 24 11±1.7/ 13.5±1.06 3.9±1.9/2.9±1.2 97,3% 3,7%
Nedir R 2009 Pros pilot 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 36 6-10 0.9±0.8 3.1±1.5 100% 16%
Nedir R 2013 Pros RCT 12 20/17 OSFE w/wo 2.4±0.9 12 8 0.4±0.7/ 0.6±0.8 5.0±1.3/3.9±1.0 90%/100% 0%
Nedir R 2009 Clinical 32 54 OSFE wo 3.8±1.2 12 8-10 0.2±0.8 2.5 ±1.7 100% 9,3%
Nedir R 2010 Prospective 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 60 6-10 0.8±0.8 3.2±1.3 100% 16%
Nedir R 2006 Prospective pilot 17 25 OSFE wo 5.4±2.3 12 10 1.2±0.7 2.5±1.2 100% 16%
Schleier P 2008 Descriptive retro 30 62 OSFE wo 7.3±3.1 24 10-14 1.5 4.5 ±1.9 94% 4,8%
Schmidlin PR 2007 Retro 24 24 OSFE wo 5.0±1.5 17.6±8.4 8.6±1.3 M2.2±1.7 / D2.5±1.5 100% 8,3%
Si MS 2013 RCT 45 21/20 OSFE w/wo 4.6±1.3 36 6-10 1.3±0.5/ 1.4±0.2 3.2±2,0/ 3.1±1.7 95,1% 6,7%
Table 3: A compilation of studies made using the osteotome sinus floor elevation technique. W/wo = with/without graft; all data in orange represent cases with graft. RBH = residual bone
height, MBL = marginal bone loss, NBF = new bone formation, ISR = implant survival rate, perf = number of perforations of the Schneiderian membrane. Numbers in red mark patients
and data where grafting materials have been used.
Figure 1: Level of evidence of different study types.
Figure 2: Illustration of the lateral technique in five steps. A bone window is removed from the lateral
wall of the sinus. The Schneiderian membrane is carefully dissected from the sinus floor. The implant
is then placed emerging into the sinus cavity with care taken not to perforate the membrane. The bone
window is put back and a blood clot is isolated in the enclosed space. After the follow-up time new
bone formation is detected.
Figure 3: Illustration of the osteotome technique in six steps. A hole is drilled in the crestal bone. An
osteotome is inserted through the hole and used to dissect the Schneiderian membrane from the sinus
floor. The implant is then placed emerging into the sinus cavity with care taken not to perforate the
membrane. A blood clot is isolated in the enclosed space. After the follow-up time new bone formation
is detected.
26
’
Figure 4: A summary of the article search process.