Advertisement

Evaluation of the survival of implant placement simultaneously with sinus augmentation: relationship in maxillary sinus pathologies

  • Sercan KüçükkurtEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effects of existing maxillary sinus pathologies on the survival rates of dental implants placed simultaneously with sinus augmentation.

Methods

Cone-beam computed tomography images of 88 patients (34 females, 54 males), who underwent sinus augmentation, were retrospectively analyzed and the patients were divided into two groups: with (pathology group) and without pathology (control group). All maxillary sinus pathologies were recorded and categorized into mucosal thickening ( ≥ 3 mm), antral pseudocyst (polypoid mucosal thickening), and complete opacification. Implant survival rates were evaluated after a mean follow-up period of 28.2 ± 9.8 months based on the patient’s records and control radiographs.

Results

A total of 115 maxillary sinuses of 88 patients with 168 dental implants were included in the study. Maxillary sinus pathology was detected in 45 patients in the pathology group and 43 patients in the control group. In the pathology group, one implant was lost out of 82 implants during the 27.8 ± 9.5 months follow-up period, while in the control group, 5 implants were lost out of 86 implants during the 25.1 ± 10 months follow-up period. There was no statistically significant difference in the survival rates between the two groups.

Conclusions

The study concluded that the presence of pathology in the maxillary sinus before surgery does not affect the survival rates of dental implants placed simultaneously with sinus augmentation. The most common pathology noted included mucosal thickening (61.4%), which was detected in 35 patients.

Keywords

Maxillary sinus Sinus augmentation Dental implant CBCT Sinus pathology 

Notes

Funding

Nil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Supplementary material

11282_2019_399_MOESM1_ESM.rar (5 mb)
Supplementary file1 (RAR 5075 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Korfage A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA, Vissink A. Patients' expectations of oral implants: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(Suppl 1):S65–S76.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonoglou GN, Stavropoulos A, Samara MD, Ioannidis A, Benic GI, Papageorgiou SN, et al. Clinical performance of dental implants following sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials with at least 3 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:e45–e65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kozuma A, Sasaki M, Seki K, Toyoshima T, Nakano H, Mori Y. Preoperative chronic sinusitis as significant cause of postoperative infection and implant loss after sinus augmentation from a lateral approach. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;21:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manji A, Faucher J, Resnik RR, Suzuki JB. Prevalence of maxillary sinus pathology in patients considered for sinus augmentation procedures for dental implants. Implant Dent. 2013;22:428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kara MI, Kirmali O, Ay S. Clinical evaluation of lateral and osteotome techniques for sinus floor elevation in the presence of an antral pseudocyst. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:1205–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kara IM, Kucuk D, Polat S. Experience of maxillary sinus floor augmentation in the presence of antral pseudocysts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:1646–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mafee MF, Tran BH, Chapa AR. Imaging of rhinosinusitis and its complications: plain film, CT, and MRI. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2006;30:165–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Havas TE, Motbey JA, Gullane PJ. Prevalence of incidental abnormalities on computed tomographic scans of the paranasal sinuses. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988;114:856–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raghav M, Karjodkar FR, Sontakke S, Sansare K. Prevalence of incidental maxillary sinus pathologies in dental patients on cone-beam computed tomographic images. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5:361–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gracco A, Incerti Parenti S, Ioele C, Alessandri Bonetti G, Stellini E. Prevalence of incidental maxillary sinus findings in Italian orthodontic patients: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Korean J Orthod. 2012;42:329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kfir E, Goldstein M, Abramovitz I, Kfir V, Mazor Z, Kaluski E. The effects of sinus membrane pathology on bone augmentation and procedural outcome using minimal invasive antral membrane balloon elevation. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40:285–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ritter L, Lutz J, Neugebauer J, Scheer M, Dreiseidler T, Zinser MJ, et al. Prevalence of pathologic findings in the maxillary sinus in cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111:634–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedland B, Metson R. A guide to recognizing maxillary sinus pathology and for deciding on further preoperative assessment prior to maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014;34:807–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U, Balsiger C. Tissue integration of one-stage implants: three-year results of a prospective longitudinal study with hollow cylinder and hollow screw implants. Quintessence Int. 1994;25:679–86.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Determinants of correct clinical reporting. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:517–21.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albrektsson T, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. State of the art of oral implants. Periodontol. 2000;2008(47):15–26.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pazera P, Bornstein MM, Pazera A, Sendi P, Katsaros C. Incidental maxillary sinus findings in orthodontic patients: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho BH, Jung YH. Prevalence of incidental paranasal sinus opacification in an adult dental population. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2009;39:191–4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rege IC, Sousa TO, Leles CR, Mendonca EF. Occurrence of maxillary sinus abnormalities detected by cone beam CT in asymptomatic patients. BMC Oral Health. 2012;12:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lambert F, Lecloux G, Rompen E. One-step approach for implant placement and subantral bone regeneration using bovine hydroxyapatite: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:598–606.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M. Methods to treat the edentulous posterior maxilla: implants with sinus grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:867–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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;35:216–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tukel HC, Tatli U. Risk factors and clinical outcomes of sinus membrane perforation during lateral window sinus lifting: analysis of 120 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1189–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perfetti G, Rossi F, Massei G, Raffaelli L, Manicone PF, Paolantonio M, et al. Sinus augmentation procedure of the jaw sinus in patients with mucocele. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2008;21:243–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lim HC, Nam JY, Cha JK, Lee JS, Lee DW, Jung UW, et al. Retrospective analysis of sinus membrane thickening: profile, causal factors, and its influence on complications. Implant Dent. 2017;26:868–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shanbhag S, Karnik P, Shirke P, Shanbhag V. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of sinus membrane thickness, ostium patency, and residual ridge heights in the posterior maxilla: implications for sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:755–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wen SC, Lin YH, Yang YC, Wang HL. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:1158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 4):124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conrad HJ, Jung J, Barczak M, Basu S, Seong WJ. Retrospective cohort study of the predictors of implant failure in the posterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:154–62.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zinser MJ, Randelzhofer P, Kuiper L, Zoller JE, De Lange GL. The predictors of implant failure after maxillary sinus floor augmentation and reconstruction: a retrospective study of 1045 consecutive implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:571–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gultekin BA, Cansiz E, Borahan O, Mangano C, Kolerman R, Mijiritsky E, et al. Evaluation of volumetric changes of augmented maxillary sinus with different bone grafting biomaterials. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:e144–e148148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gultekin BA, Sirali A, Gultekin P, Yalcin S, Mijiritsky E. Does the laser-microtextured short implant collar design reduce marginal bone loss in comparison with a machined collar? Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9695389.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryIstanbul Aydın UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations