Implants in the posterior maxilla: a comparative clinical and radiologic study

• Published in: The International journal of oral and maxillofacial implants Vol. 20; no. 2; p. 231
• Main Authors: Rodoni, Luca R, Glauser, Roland, Feloutzis, Andreas, Hämmerle, Christoph H F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-03-2005
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Process - pathology; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods; Bone Matrix - transplantation; Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use; Dental Implants; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Male; Maxilla - diagnostic imaging; Maxilla - pathology; Maxilla - surgery; Maxillary Sinus - diagnostic imaging; Maxillary Sinus - pathology; Maxillary Sinus - surgery; Middle Aged; Minerals - therapeutic use; Osteotomy - methods; Periodontal Pocket - diagnostic imaging; Periodontal Pocket - pathology; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0882-2786

The aim of this study was to evaluate implants placed according to several methods of sinus floor augmentation.
Forty-eight patients (median age of 62 years, range 23 to 89) had been treated at least 3 years prior to examination with screw-type implants in the posterior maxilla. Depending on the vertical dimension of the residual bone, 1 of 3 surgical procedures had been performed: sinus lift by lateral antrostomy (SL) in 13 patients; osteotome technique (OT) in 18 patients; standard implantation in 17 patients (control). In each patient 1 implant was randomly chosen for analysis (48 implants with a mean observation time of 4.6 +/- 1.4 years). Examination included probing pocket depth (PPD) measurement and radiographic examination. Radiographs were digitized to assess the marginal bone level. Differences between the groups were tested using analysis of variance, the Student t test and the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Mean PPD was 3.0 mm for the SL, 3.1 mm for OT, and 3.1 mm for control. The mean radiographic bone level was 1.53 mm for SL, 2.40 mm for OT, and 1.96 mm for control. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for either of these parameters.
Clinical examinations as well as radiographically stable bone levels indicated similar biomechanical conditions for prosthetic restorations when applying the 3 surgical procedures tested.