Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two sinus floor elevation techniques: the conventional lateral window technique versus the transalveolar approach using a hydrodynamic ultrasonic device.

Materials and methods

The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial, and participants were randomly allocated to the control group (lateral window: LW) or to the test group (hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: HTA). The intraoperative and postoperative data, including procedure duration and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), were collected during the surgery and up to 1 year post-surgery. Additionally, qualitative assessment of gained bone volumes and implant survival rates was recorded.

Results

Twenty-two patients were included in the study. The mean surgical time was significantly longer in the HTA compared to the LW group (48.1 ± 11.2 min vs. 35.2 ± 9.1 min, P = 0.0011). Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occurred in 2/11 and 5/11 patients in the LW and the HTA group, respectively (P = 0.36). Postoperatively, higher morbidity and consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were associated with the LW group. However, self-reported satisfaction with surgical procedures was similar in the two groups. At 1 year, implant survival rates of 80% in the HTA group and 100% in the LW group were recorded (P = 0.12).

Conclusions

Although the new transalveolar approach seems to reduce postoperative morbidity, an increased risk of intraoperative complications compared to the LW approach needs to be considered when choosing a technique.

Clinical relevance

Our results provide new insights regarding clinical and radiographic outcomes of HTA and may help further determine indications for its use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrivals.gov: NCT04499625

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barone A, Covani U (2019) Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(10):2039–2046 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278239107006143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lambert F, Lecloux G, Rompen E (2010) 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 25(3):598–606

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharma A, Rahul GR (2012) Zygomatic implants/fixture: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol 39(2):215–224 https://www.joionline.org/doi/full/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Starch-Jensen T, Jensen JD (2019) Maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a review of selected treatment modalities. J Oral Maxillofac Res 8(3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5676313/

  5. Fan T, Li Y, Deng W-W, Wu T, Zhang W (2017) Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: a meta-analysis of RCTs: short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(1):207–215 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cid.12432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyne PJ, James RA (1980) Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 38(8):613–616

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 35(8 Suppl):216–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Summers RB (1994) A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compend Newtown Pa 15(2):152 154–6, 158 passim; quiz 162

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fugazzotto PA (2001) The modified trephine/osteotome sinus augmentation technique: technical considerations and discussion of indications. Implant Dent 10(4):259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen L, Cha J (2005) An 8-year retrospective study: 1,100 patients receiving 1,557 implants using the minimally invasive hydraulic sinus condensing technique. J Periodontol 76(3):482–491 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.2005.76.3.482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sforza NM, Marzadori M, Zucchelli G (2008) Simplified osteotome sinus augmentation technique with simultaneous implant placement: a clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 28(3):291–299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindhe J, Lang NP, Berglundh T, Giannobile WV, Sanz M (eds) (2015) Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry, 6th edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Chichester, West Sussex; Ames, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pal US, Sharma NK, Singh RK, Mahammad S, Mehrotra D, Singh N et al (2012) Direct vs. indirect sinus lift procedure: a comparison. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 3(1):31–37 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513806/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Troedhan A, Schlichting I, Kurrek A, Wainwright M (2014) Primary implant stability in augmented sinuslift-sites after completed bone regeneration: a randomized controlled clinical study comparing four subantrally inserted biomaterials. Sci Rep 4:5877 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stelzle F, Benner K-U (2011) Evaluation of different methods of indirect sinus floor elevation for elevation heights of 10mm: an experimental ex vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 13(2):124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M (2012) Biological principles and physiology of bone regeneration under the Schneiderian membrane after sinus lift surgery: a radiological study in 14 patients treated with the transcrestal hydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinus lift (intralift). Int J Dent 576238:2012 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382962/

    Google Scholar 

  17. Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Schlichting I, Fischak-Treitl B, Ladentrog M (2013) The transcrestal hydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinuslift: results of a 2-year prospective multicentre study on 404 patients, 446 sinuslift sites and 637 inserted implants. Open J Stomatol 03:471 http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=41113&#abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Temmerman A, Dessel JV, Cortellini S, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M (2017) Volumetric changes of grafted volumes and the Schneiderian membrane after transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation procedures: a clinical, pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 44(6):660–671 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpe.12728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63(8):e1–e37 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435610001034

  20. Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E (2004) The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol 75(4):511–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shlomi B, Horowitz I, Kahn A, Dobriyan A, Chaushu G (2004) The effect of sinus membrane perforation and repair with Lambone on the outcome of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a radiographic assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(4):559–562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hernández-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C (2008) Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(1):91–98 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01372.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Khoury F (1999) Augmentation of the sinus floor with mandibular bone block and simultaneous implantation: a 6-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14(4):557–564

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stricker A, Voss PJ, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Schmelzeisen R (2003) Maxillary sinus floor augmention with autogenous bone grafts to enable placement of SLA-surfaced implants: preliminary results after 15–40 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 14(2):207–212 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140211.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reiser GM, Rabinovitz Z, Bruno J, Damoulis PD, Griffin TJ (2001) Evaluation of maxillary sinus membrane response following elevation with the crestal osteotome technique in human cadavers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(6):833–840

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ardekian L, Oved-Peleg E, Mactei EE, Peled M (2006) The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 64(2):277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Viña-Almunia J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M (2009) Influence of perforation of the sinus membrane on the survival rate of implants placed after direct sinus lift. Literature update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 14(3):E133–E136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aimetti M, Romagnoli R, Ricci G, Massei G (2001) Maxillary sinus elevation: the effect of macrolacerations and microlacerations of the sinus membrane as determined by endoscopy. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 21(6):581–589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pikos MA (1999) Maxillary sinus membrane repair: report of a technique for large perforations. Implant Dent 8(1):29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hernández-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C (2008) Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:91–98 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01372.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Testori T, Weinstein RL, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M (2012) Risk factor analysis following maxillary sinus augmentation: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27(5):1170–1176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Velázquez-Cayón R, Romero-Ruiz MM, Torres-Lagares D, Pérez-Dorao B, Wainwright M, Abalos-Labruzzi C et al (2012) Hydrodynamic ultrasonic maxillary sinus lift: review of a new technique and presentation of a clinical case. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17(2):e271–e275 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448305/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Afrashtehfar KI, Katsoulis J, Koka S, Igarashi K (2020) Single versus splinted short implants at sinus augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg:S2468–S7855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.08.013

  34. Younes F, Eghbali A, Goemaere T, De Bruyckere T, Cosyn J (2018) Patient-reported outcomes after lateral wall sinus floor elevation: a systematic review. Implant Dent 27(2):236–245 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29319545/

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor Adelin Albert and Laurence Seidel for their help in performing the statistical analyses and proofreading.

Funding

The work was supported by the authors’ institution (Department of Periodontology and Oral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liege, Belgium). The implants used in this study were received from Nobel Biocare (research grant 2013-1196).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Miljana Bacevic and Yoann Compeyron contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental Biomaterials Research Unit (d-BRU), Faculty of Medicine, University of Liege, 4000, Liege, Belgium

    Miljana Bacevic & France Lambert

  2. Department of Periodontology and Oral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liege, 4000, Liege, Belgium

    Yoann Compeyron, Geoffrey Lecloux, Eric Rompen & France Lambert

Authors
  1. Miljana Bacevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoann Compeyron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geoffrey Lecloux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Rompen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. France Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miljana Bacevic.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOC 219 kb)

ESM 2

(DOC 50 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bacevic, M., Compeyron, Y., Lecloux, G. et al. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of sinus floor elevation using the lateral window technique versus the hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Invest 25, 5391–5401 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03847-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03847-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation