Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the survival rate of implants placed in sites with transalveolar sinus floor elevation. Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on transalveolar sinus floor elevation, with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year after functional loading. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates/ year proportions. Results: The search provided 849 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 176 articles, resulting in 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated annual failure rate of 2.48% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.37‐4.49%) translating to an estimated survival rate of 92.8% (95% CI): 87.4‐96.0%) for implants placed in transalveolarly augmented sinuses, after 3 years in function. Furthermore, subject-based analysis revealed an estimated annual failure of 3.71% (95% CI: 1.21‐11.38%), translating to 10.5% (95% CI: 3.6‐28.9%) of the subjects experiencing implant loss over 3 years. Conclusion: Survival rates of implants placed in transalveolar sinus floor augmentation sites are comparable to those in non-augmented sites. This technique is predictable with a low incidence of complications during and post-operatively.

A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation

Purpose A variety of techniques and materials have been used to establish the structural base of osseous tissue for supporting dental implants. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most successful technique(s) to provide the necessary alveolar bone to place a dental implant and support long-term survival. Methods A systematic online review of a main database and manual search of relevant articles from refereed journals were performed between 1980 and 2005. Updates and additions were made from September 2004 to May 2005. The hard tissue augmentation techniques were separated into 2 anatomic sites, the maxillary sinus and alveolar ridge. Within the alveolar ridge augmentation technique, different surgical approaches were identified and categorized, including guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay/veneer grafting (OVG), combinations of onlay, veneer, interpositional inlay grafting (COG), distraction osteogenesis (DO), ridge splitting (RS), free and vascularized autografts for discontinuity defects (DD), mandibular interpositional grafting (MI), and socket preservation (SP). All identified articles were evaluated and screened by 2 independent reviewers to meet strict inclusion criteria. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were further evaluated for data extraction. The initial search identified a total of 526 articles from the electronic database and manual search. Of these, 335 articles met the inclusion criteria after a review of the titles and abstracts. From the 335 articles, further review of the full text of the articles produced 90 articles that provided sufficient data for extraction and analysis. Results For the maxillary sinus grafting (SG) technique, the results showed a total of 5,128 implants placed, with follow-up times ranging from 12 to 102 months. Implant survival was 92% for implants placed into autogenous and autogenous/composite grafts, 93.3% for implants placed into allogeneic/nonautogenous composite grafts, 81% for implants placed into alloplast and alloplast/xenograft materials, and 95.6% for implants placed into xenograft materials alone. For alveolar ridge augmentation, a total of 2,620 implants were placed, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 74 months. The implant survival rate was 95.5% for GBR, 90.4% for OVG, 94.7% for DO, and 83.8% for COG. Other techniques, such as DD, RS, SP, and MI, were difficult to analyze because of the small sample size and data heterogeneity within and across studies. Conclusions The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure has been well documented, and the long-term clinical success/survival (> 5 years) of implants placed, regardless of graft material(s) used, compares favorably to implants placed conventionally, with no grafting procedure, as reported in other systematic reviews. Alveolar ridge augmentation techniques do not have detailed documentation or long-term follow-up studies, with the exception of GBR. However, studies that met the inclusion criteria seemed to be comparable and yielded favorable results in supporting dental implants. The alveolar ridge augmentation procedures may be more technique- and operator-experience-sensitive, and implant survival may be a function of residual bone supporting the dental implant rather than grafted bone. More in-depth, long-term, multicenter studies are required to provide further insight into augmentation procedures to support dental implant survival.

Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement

Background: The advent of osseointegration and advances in biomaterials and techniques have contributed to increased application of dental implants in the restoration of partial and completely edentulous patients. Often, in these patients, soft and hard tissue defects result from a variety of causes, such as infection, trauma, and tooth loss. These create an anatomically less favorable foundation for ideal implant placement. For prosthetic-driven dental implant therapy, reconstruction of the alveolar bone through a variety of regenerative surgical procedures has become predictable; it may be necessary prior to implant placement or simultaneously at the time of implant surgery to provide a restoration with a good long-term prognosis. Regenerative procedures are used for socket preservation, sinus augmentation, and horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation.Methods: A broad overview of the published findings in the English literature related to various bone augmentation techniques is outlined. A comprehensi...

Bone augmentation techniques.

https://www.championsimplants.com/upload/files/studien/2010_study_19.pdf

The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review.

Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the survival rate of implants placed in sites with transalveolar sinus floor elevation.

Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on transalveolar sinus floor elevation, with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year after functional loading. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates/ year proportions.

Results: The search provided 849 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 176 articles, resulting in 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated annual failure rate of 2.48% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.37–4.49%) translating to an estimated survival rate of 92.8% (95% CI): 87.4–96.0%) for implants placed in transalveolarly augmented sinuses, after 3 years in function. Furthermore, subject-based analysis revealed an estimated annual failure of 3.71% (95% CI: 1.21–11.38%), translating to 10.5% (95% CI: 3.6–28.9%) of the subjects experiencing implant loss over 3 years.

Conclusion: Survival rates of implants placed in transalveolar sinus floor augmentation sites are comparable to those in non-augmented sites. This technique is predictable with a low incidence of complications during and post-operatively.

A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique.

This article reviews the limitations of drilling into soft bone to place endosseous implants. Differences among bone types and the anatomy of the maxilla are described. The osteotome technique, which is a new method of placing implants into maxillary bone without drilling, and the rationale for two other procedures, the osteotome sinus floor elevation and the ridge expansion osteotomy, are detailed. How osteotomes conserve osseous tissue and may improve bone density around the implant is also discussed. A pilot study that shows excellent results with several types of press-fit implants using the osteotome technique is provided. The author concludes that the osteotome technique is superior to drilling for many applications in soft maxillary bone. Furthermore, the osteotome technique allows more implants to be inserted in a greater variety of sites during a routine office procedure.

Summers Rb

Papers

A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique.