Implant success remains high despite grafting voids in the maxillary sinus

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 447 - 453
• Main Authors: Tsai, Ching-Yu, Garaicoa-Pazmino, Carlos, Mori, Kuniyasu, Benavides, Erika, Kaigler, Darnell, Kapila, Yvonne
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2015; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Augmentation; bone grafting; Bone grafts; Bone Transplantation - methods; Compacting; Computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dentistry; Female; Grafting; Grafts; Humans; Male; Mathematical analysis; Maxillary sinus; Maxillary Sinus - diagnostic imaging; Maxillary Sinus - surgery; Middle Aged; sinus floor augmentation; Sinus Floor Augmentation - methods; Sinuses; Success; Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Voids; cone-beam computed tomography; sinus floor augmentation; maxillary sinus; bone grafting; dental implants
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12386

Objectives Given that the nature and presence of voids present within grafted sinuses following maxillary sinus elevation procedures were not known, nor was the contribution of these factors to implant success, the purpose of this study was to investigate these parameters and their relationship to implant success. Materials and Methods This study evaluated data from 25 subjects who had a lateral window maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed at baseline and 4 months after surgery. CBCT images were used to evaluate grafted sites prior to implant placement. Using CBCT images, three examiners independently measured bone‐grafted areas (BG), void areas (V), and percentage of void areas (V%) from six different sections within grafted sites. The six sections were defined as a cross‐sectional (CS) midpoint, CS mesial point, CS distal point, horizontal section (HS) low point, HS midpoint, and HS high point. Implant success was also determined. Results The calculated V% (V/BG) for the CS midpoint, CS mesial point, CS distal point, HS low point, HS midpoint, and HS high point were 5.30 ± 6.67%, 5.79 ± 8.51%, 6.67 ± 7.12%, 2.07 ± 2.56%, 5.30 ± 6.62%, and 4.92 ± 5.17% respectively. Implant success after 6 months of follow‐up approximated 100%. Conclusions Although voids within grafts varied in terms of distribution and size, the V% within the HS low point were significantly smaller compared to those within the CS midpoint and CS distal point, which had the most intra‐subject V%. Thus, more attention should be given to the distal aspect of the sinus when compacting graft materials in the lateral wall sinus augmentation procedure. Implant success was not influenced by the existence of voids as implant success remained high.