Implant dentistry · 2011
Survival rates of implants inserted in the maxillary sinus area by internal or external approach.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uckan Sina, Tamer Yusuf, Deniz Kagan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There are 2 surgical techniques to elevate the sinus floor: sinus lift with crestal approach (internal sinus lift [ISL]) and sinus lift with lateral wall approach (external sinus lift [ESL]). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the survival rates of implants placed in the posterior maxilla with ESL or ISL.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety sinus lifts with lateral wall approach were performed in 82 patients, and 147 implants were inserted in these augmented sinuses in ESL group. Forty-five implants were inserted in maxilla in 33 patients with sinus lift with crestal approach in ISL group. The follow-up time was 33.8 and 15.6 months for ESL and ISL groups, respectively.
RESULTS: One implant failure was observed in ESL group, and there was no implant failure in ISL group. All other implants were functioning well without any significant clinical finding. Implant survival was 99.2% in ESL group and 100% in ISL group.
CONCLUSION: The sinus lift with lateral wall approach and crestal approach were reliable methods for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla. Survival rates of the ISL were slightly higher than ESL group. However, follow-up time of the ISL was shorter.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety sinus lifts with lateral wall approach were performed in 82 patients, and 147 implants were inserted in these augmented sinuses in ESL group. Forty-five implants were inserted in maxilla in 33 patients with sinus lift with crestal approach in ISL group. The follow-up time was 33.8 and 15.6 months for ESL and ISL groups, respectively.
RESULTS: One implant failure was observed in ESL group, and there was no implant failure in ISL group. All other implants were functioning well without any significant clinical finding. Implant survival was 99.2% in ESL group and 100% in ISL group.
CONCLUSION: The sinus lift with lateral wall approach and crestal approach were reliable methods for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla. Survival rates of the ISL were slightly higher than ESL group. However, follow-up time of the ISL was shorter.