Evaluation of the survival of implant placement simultaneously with sinus augmentation: relationship in maxillary sinus pathologies
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsMaxillary sinus Sinus augmentation Dental implant CBCT Sinus pathology
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
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 was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Determinants of correct clinical reporting. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:517–21.Google Scholar
- 17.Albrektsson T, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. State of the art of oral implants. Periodontol. 2000;2008(47):15–26.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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