Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지

Effect of maxillary sinus graft on the survival of endosseous implants: A 10-year retrospective study

  • Jeon, Hye-Ran (Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry Department of Implant Dentistry) ;
  • Pang, Eun-Kyoung (Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry Department of Implant Dentistry) ;
  • Pae, Ah-Ran (Ewha Womans University School of Medicine Department of Periodontology) ;
  • Kim, Myung-Rae (Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry Department of Implant Dentistry) ;
  • Kang, Na-Ra (Ewha Womans University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry Department of Implant Dentistry)
  • Published : 2008.08.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the survival rates of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses and compare the results obtained with graft materials, implant surfaces and timing of implant placement. Materials and Methods: Between January 1996 and December 2005, 391 implants were placed in 161 patients who underwent sinus grafting treatment simultaneously or separately at Ewha Womans University Hospital. According to inclusion criteria, 272 implants were placed in 102 patients with 112 sinus grafts (30 females, 72 males), aged 26 to 88 years (mean age $49.0{\pm}9.7$). The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 134 months (mean F/U $47{\pm}32$). Survival rates were evaluated according to graft material, implant surface and timing of implant placement. The Kaplan-Meier procedure and the log rank (Mantel-Cox) test were used to estimate survival rates and test for equality of survival rates between different groups of patients. Results: Ten-year cumulative survival rate for implants placed in the grafted sinuses was 90.1%. The survival rates for autogenous bone, combination and bone substitutes were 94.6%, 85.9% and 100%, respectively (p > 0.05). According to implant surface, survival rates were 84.8% in machined group and 97.5% in rough group (p < 0.05). The survival rates were 92.9% in delayed group and 86.0% in simultaneous group (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Ten-year cumulative survival rate for implants placed in the grafted sinuses was 90.1%. Rough-surfaced implants have a higher survival rate than machined-surfaced implants when placed in grafted sinuses (p < 0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. Tatum H, Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 1986;30:207-229.
  2. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38: 613-616.
  3. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ. Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:11-45.
  4. Tong DC, Rioux K, Drangsholt M, Beirne OR. A review of survival rates for implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses using meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:175-182.
  5. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:328-343. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.328
  6. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24:565-577.
  7. Joonhea Baik, Myungrae Kim. Effects of the sinus lift augmentation on the survival of the osseointegrated dental implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The Journal of Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology 2001;5:10-24.
  8. Graziani F, Donos N, Needleman I, Gabriele M, Tonetti M. Comparison of implant survival following sinus floor augmentation procedures with implants placed in pristine posterior maxillary bone: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:677-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01116.x
  9. Froum SJ, Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Rohrer MD, Cho SC. Sinus floor elevation using anorganic bovine bone matrix (OsteoGraf/N) with and without autogenous bone: a clinical, histologic, radiographic, and histomorphometric analysis--Part 2 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:528-543.
  10. Wheeler SL, Holmes RE, Calhoun CJ. Six-year clinical and histologic study of sinus-lift grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:26-34.
  11. Hallman M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S. A clinical and histologic evaluation of implant integration in the posterior maxilla after sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone, bovine hydroxyapatite, or a 20:80 mixture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:635-643.
  12. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S et al. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  13. Lazzara RJ, Testori T, Trisi P, Porter SS, Weinstein RL. A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:117-129.
  14. Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, Gunsolley J. A multi-center study comparing dual acid-etched and machined-surfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontol 2001;72:1384-1390. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1384
  15. Ioannidou E, Dean JW. Osteotome sinus floor elevation and simultaneous, non-submerged implant placement: case report and literature review. J Periodontol 2000;71:1613-1619. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.10.1613
  16. Peleg M, Mazor Z, Chaushu G, Garg AK. Sinus floor augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in the severely atrophic maxilla. J Periodontol 1998;69:1397-1403. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1998.69.12.1397
  17. Misch CE, Dietsh F. Endosteal implants and iliac crest grafts to restore severely resorbed totally edentulous maxillae--a retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 1994;20: 100-110.
  18. Keller EE, Eckert SE, Tolman DE. Maxillary antral and nasal one-stage inlay composite bone graft: preliminary report on 30 recipient sites. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:438-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(94)90335-2
  19. Williamson RA. Rehabilitation of the resorbed maxilla and mandible using autogenous bone grafts and osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:476-488.
  20. Smiler DG, Holmes RE. Sinus lift procedure using porous hydroxyapatite: a preliminary clinical report. J Oral Implantol 1987;13:239-253.
  21. Tidwell JK, Blijdorp PA, Stoelinga PJ, Brouns JB, Hinderks F. Composite grafting of the maxillary sinus for placement of endosteal implants. A preliminary report of 48 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;21:204-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80219-X
  22. Coatoam GW, Krieger JT. A four-year study examining the results of indirect sinus augmentation procedures. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:117-127.
  23. Misch CE. Maxillary sinus augmentation for endosteal implants: organized alternative treatment plans. Int J Oral Implantol 1987;4:49-58.
  24. Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S, Oliver AJ. Varying treatment strategies for reconstruction of maxillary atrophy with implants: results in 98 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:210-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(94)90283-6
  25. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-172. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
  26. Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U, Balsiger C. Tissue integration of one-stage ITI implants: 3-year results of a longitudinal study with Hollow-Cylinder and Hollow-Screw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:405-412.
  27. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM et al. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:144-153. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  28. Moy PK, Lundgren S, Holmes RE. Maxillary sinus augmentation: histomorphometric analysis of graft materials for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:857-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80103-X
  29. Valentini P, Abensur D, Wenz B, Peetz M, Schenk R. Sinus grafting with porous bone mineral (Bio-Oss) for implant placement: a 5-year study on 15 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:245-253.
  30. Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Tarnow DP. Histologic evaluation of a sinus elevation procedure: a clinical report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:46-51.
  31. Keller EE, Tolman DE, Eckert S. Surgical-prosthodontic reconstruction of advanced maxillary bone compromise with autogenous onlay block bone grafts and osseointegrated endosseous implants: a 12-year study of 32 consecutive patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:197-209.
  32. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:391-401.
  33. Testori T, Del Fabbro M, Feldman S et al. A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2-months loaded Osseotite implants placed in the posterior jaws: 3-year follow-up results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:154-161. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130205.x
  34. Jensen OT. The Sinus Bone Graft, 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2006:56.
  35. Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Rohrer MD, Cho SC. Histologic and clinical comparison of bilateral sinus floor elevations with and without barrier membrane placement in 12 patients: Part 3 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:117-125.
  36. Tawil G, Mawla M. Sinus floor elevation using a bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss) with or without the concomitant use of a bilayered collagen barrier (Bio-Gide): a clinical report of immediate and delayed implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:713-721