Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes using crestal approach sinus kit and piezoelectric surgery for sinus membrane elevation: A prospective clinical trial

• Published in: Dental research journal Vol. 19; no. 1; p. 88
• Main Authors: Mamidi, AishwaryaRatna, Gottumukkala, SruthimaN. V. S., Mantena, SatyanarayanaRaju, Penmetsa, GautamiS, Ramesh, KonathalaS. V., Pasupuleti, MohanKumar
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 01.01.2022; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: dental implants; minimally invasive surgical procedures; Original; piezosurgery; platelet-rich fibrin; sinus floor augmentation
• ISSN: 1735-3327; 2008-0255
• DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.359325

BackgroundTo overcome the drawbacks of sinus floor augmentation procedures newer surgical techniques to reduce sinus perforation such as crestal approach sinus kit (CAS) and piezosurgery, which are minimally invasive procedures enabling uncomplicated sinus elevation have evolved. The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance of CAS kit compared to piezosurgery during maxillary sinus membrane elevation. Materials and MethodsA total of 40 subjects requiring maxillary sinus membrane augmentation for rehabilitation with implant prosthesis in posterior maxilla were included in the study. The current study was a prospective clinical trial where osteotomy and sinus elevation was done using CAS kit in Group 1 and piezosurgery in Group 2. Platelet-rich fibrin was placed in osteotomy site and dental implants were inserted. Implant stability was evaluated at baseline and 3 months. Crestal bone loss was measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. Apical bone gain was measured at 6 and 12 months. Intragroup comparison of the study groups was done by Paired t-test, ANOVA test, and Friedman test. Intergroup comparison was done by unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ResultsImplant stability improved in both the groups, i.e., 79.2 ± 5.02 and 79 ± 5.31 in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, at 3 months. Intergroup comparison showed no difference in all parameters; however, crestal bone loss was greater in piezosurgery group with a mean difference of 0.74 mm. ConclusionBoth CAS and piezosurgery groups showed definitive improvement in all parameters. CAS group resulted in added benefits in terms of less crestal bone loss and intraoperative surgical time compared to piezosurgery group.