2011Implant DentistryRequires access

Survival Rates of Implants Inserted in the Maxillary Sinus Area by Internal or External Approach

Sina Uçkan, Yusuf Tamer, K. Deniz

Open publisher page 16 citations

Abstract

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 16 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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.

Key concepts: Sinus lift, Medicine, Maxillary sinus, Sinus (botany), Maxilla, Implant, Dentistry, Lift (data mining)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Survival Rates of Implants Inserted in the Maxillary Sinus Area by Internal or External Approach — Research Paper | ScholarLens