Sinus augmentation and concomitant implant placement in low bone‐density sites. A retrospective study on an undersized drilling protocol and primary stability

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research Vol. 20; no. 2; pp. 151 - 159
• Main Authors: Arosio, Paolo, Greco, Gian Battista, Zaniol, Terry, Iezzi, Giovanna, Perrotti, Vittoria, Di Stefano, Danilo Alessio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2018
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Augmentation; Bone Density; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - instrumentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental implants; Dentistry; Drilling; Female; Humans; implant dentistry; Implants; Male; Maxilla; Maxilla - surgery; maxillary sinus augmentation; Middle Aged; Patients; primary stability; Rehabilitation; Retrospective Studies; Sinus Floor Augmentation - methods; Sinuses; Stability analysis; Torque; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome; undersized drilling; maxillary sinus augmentation; implant dentistry; primary stability; undersized drilling; bone density
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12558

Background Recently, a torque‐measuring micromotor has been shown to provide a reliable, quantitative intraoperative evaluation of bone density and implant primary stability. This may be particularly useful for determining bone quality of residual bone and consequently the most appropriate site preparation in the posterior maxilla, where bone often is of low density and quality. Purpose This work aimed to assess the medium‐term success of implants placed during 1‐stage sinus augmentations using an undersized drilling protocol. In case of low bone density, the relationship between residual bone height (RBH) and primary stability was also investigated. Materials and Methods Clinical records of patients who underwent sinus augmentation and concomitant implant placement following a 12.5% undersized drilling protocol were retrospectively analyzed. In all patients, bone density measured intraoperatively was ≤ 0.45 g/cm3. A minimum of 60 months of follow‐up was required for inclusion. Results Records of 106 patients who received 253 implants were reviewed. No significant difference in the implant success rate was found for patients who had less than 4 mm of RBH and those who had more. Conclusions Underpreparation of the implant‐placement sites enabled achievement of successful implant‐supported rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla even when both RBH and bone density were low.