Browse > Article

Survival analysis of implants placed in the sinus floor elevated maxilla  

Park, Jong-Yeon (Dept. of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Gwang-Ju MIR Dental Hospital)
Kim, Ok-Su (Dept. of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Dental Science Research Institute)
Ryoo, Gyeong-Ho (Gwang-Ju MIR Dental Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.37, no.2, 2007 , pp. 151-164 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: The sinus floor elevation procedures have been used to facilitate implant placement in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla. Many variables may have an influence on the outcomes of the sinus floor elevation in combination with implant treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze survival rate of implants placed in the edentulous maxillae of patients in whom sinus floor elevation was undertaken according to variables. Materials and Methods: It consisted of 96 patients(50 male and 46 female), ranging in age from 31 to 70 years(mean 49 years), who underwent sinus floor elevation procedure(94 implants in left side and 106 implants in right side) from 2001 to 2002. A total of 200 implants were placed in the grafted sinus(73 implants in lateral approach and 127 implants in crestal approach). All implants were restored by fixed prosthesis. All patients were healthy. Follow-up periods for implants were between 48 to 60 months. Results: The cumulative survival rate of implants was 91.5%. Gender, age and operation site did not have an influence on the survival rate. There was statistically significant differences for the implants which placed in less than 4 or 5 rom residual bone height, the survival rate was 60%, 81.4% respectively (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of implants survival rate ac- cording to approach technique. The survival rate for 100% autogenous bone grafts was lower with respect to composite grafts containing autogenous bone and 100% substitutes. The survival rate for hydroxyapatite-coated implants was statistically significant lower than other textured group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Residual bone height, surface texture and graft materials have an influence on the survival rate. To use autogenous bone as a part of a composite bone replacement, implant texture which leads to more favorable implant-bone interface were necessary. To determine residual bone height for initial implant stability was important.
Keywords
Sinus floor elevation; Graft; Survival rate; Implants;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Predecki P, Stephan JE, Auslaender BA, Mooney VL, Kirkand K. Kinetics of bone growth into cylindrical channels in aluminum oxide and titanium. J Biomed Mater Res 1972;6:375-400   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Block MS, Kent JM. Siuns augmentation for dental implants: The use of autogenous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55: 1281-1286   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implant: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25   PUBMED
4 Rosenberg ES, Cho SC, Elian N et al, A comparison of characteristics of implant failure and survival in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:873-879
5 Hatano N, Shimizu Y, Ooya K.A. Clinical long-term radiographic evaluation of graft height changes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a 2:1 autogenous bone/xenograft mixture and simultaneous placement of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:339-345   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J. Long-term success of sinus augmentation using various surgical approaches and grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:52-58
7 Ioannidou E, Dean JW. Osteotome sinus floor elevation and simultaneous, nonsubmerged implant placement: case report and literature review. J Periodontol 2000; 71:1613-1619   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Toffler M. Minimally invasive sinus floor elevation procedures for simultaneous and staged implant placement. NY State Dent J 2004; 70: 38-44
9 Hall D, McKenna SJ. Bone graft of the maxillary sinus floor for Br nemark implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin Noth Am 1991;3:869-875
10 Hallmann M, Hedin M, Sennerby L et al.. A prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:227-284
11 Jensen OT. Allogeneic bone or hydroxyapatite for the sinus lift procedure? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:771   PUBMED
12 Hising P, Bolin A, Branting C. Reconstruction of severely resorbed alveolar ridge crests with dental implants using a bovine bone mineral for augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:90-97
13 Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systemic review. Ann Periodontal 2003;8:328-343   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613-617   PUBMED
15 Mish CE, Bone Character: Second vital implant criterion, Dent Today 1998;7:39-40
16 Friberg B, Sennerby L, Roos J, Lekholm U, Identification of bone quality in conjunction with insertion of titanium implants. A pilot study in jaw autopsy specimens, Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:213-219   DOI   ScienceOn
17 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
18 Jensen OT, Sennerby L. Histologic analysis of clinically retrieved titanium microimplants placed in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:513-521
19 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   PUBMED
20 Babbush CA, Kent JN, Misiek DJ. Titanium plasma-sprayed screw implants for the reconstruction of the edentulous mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;44:274-282   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Summers RB. The osteotome technique: Part 3-less invasive methods of elevating the sinus floor. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1994;15:698-708
22 Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B et al, A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6:24-30   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Hürzeler MB, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Qui ones CR. Reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with dental implants in the augmented maxillary sinus: a 5-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:466-475
24 Graziani F, Donos N, Needleman I et al, Comparison of implant survival following sinus floor augmentation procedures with implants placed in pristine posterior maxillary bone: A systemic review, Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:677-682   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Landi L, Pretel RW Jr, Hakimi NM et al, Maxillary sinus floor elevation using a combination of DFDBA and bovine-derived porous hydroxyapatite: a preliminary histologic and histomorphometric report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:574-583   PUBMED
26 Jensen OT. The sinus bone graft. 2nd ed, Quintessence Publishing Co., 2006:223-226
27 Lazzara RJ, Testori T, Trisi P et al, A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:117-129   PUBMED
28 Kent J, Block M. Simultaneously maxillary sinus floor bone grafting and placement of hydroxyapatite-coated implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:238-242   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Valentini P, Abensur DJ. Maxillary sinus grafting with anorganic bovine bone: a clinical report of long-term results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:556-560
30 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   DOI