Ewha Med J.  2012 Mar;35(1):26-31. 10.12771/emj.2012.35.1.26.

A Radiographic Evaluation of Graft Height Changes after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation according to Single-unit Implants and Multi-unit Implants

• Park MJ
• Kim MR
• Kim JY
• Kim YM
• Kim SJ

• KMID: 2134942
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2012.35.1.26

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study was performed to evaluate whether there is the difference of graft height changes in radiographic evaluation in single implants and multiple implants after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with an auto-xenograft mixture.
METHODS
The study group comprised 29 patients (16 men, 13 women; mean age, 56.5+/-12.4 years; range, 27 to 87 years) treated at the implant clinic of the Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital. They were treated with the sinus floor augmentation of lateral window technique and simultaneous placement of dental implants. Their implants have been evaluated for 42.4+/-10.5 months. To evaluate the height of grafted material, the real implant length was compared with that of panoramic radiography evaluated by a digital caliper (PACS program), and then the real height of grafted material was assumed. SPSS 19.0 was used in statistical analysis. Wilcoxon singed rank test was utilized for P value and Mann-Whitney for statistical significance in the changes of grafted height between single implants and multiple implants. The level of statistical significance was defined as P<0.001.
RESULTS
The evaluated graft height in single implants' group decreased to 0.60+/-0.54 mm at the time of delivery (after 7.5 months, P=0.001), in multi-unit implants' group to 0.96+/-0.84 mm (after 6.5 months, P<0.001). The evaluated graft height in single implants' group decreased to 1.11+/-0.75 mm at the last follow-up (after 43.5 months, P=0.001), in multi-unit implants' group to 1.52+/-0.99 mm (after 41.8 months, P<0.001). Mann-Whitney test was used for the difference between single implants and multi-unit implants. There was no difference in two groups at the time of delivery and the last follow-up (P>0.001).
CONCLUSION
There was no statistical significance of radiographic graft height after maxillary sinus floor augmentation between single implants and multiple implants.

Keyword

Auto-xenograft mixture; Sinus augmentation; Panorama; Radiographic evaluation

MeSH Terms

Dental Implants
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Maxillary Sinus
Radiography, Panoramic
Sinus Floor Augmentation
Transplants
Dental Implants

Reference

1. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J. Long-term success of sinus augmentation using various surgical approaches and grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998. 13:52–58.

2. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980. 38:613–616.

3. McAllister BS, Margolin MD, Cogan AG, Buck D, Hollinger JO, Lynch SE. Eighteen-month radiographic and histologic evaluation of sinus grafting with anorganic bovine bone in the chimpanzee. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999. 14:361–368.

4. Block MS, Kent JN, Kallukaran FU, Thunthy K, Weinberg R. Bone maintenance 5 to 10 years after sinus grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998. 56:706–714.

5. Hatano N, Shimizu Y, Ooya K. A clinical long-term radiographic evaluation of graft height changes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a 2:1 autogenous bone/xenograft mixture and simultaneous placement of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004. 15:339–345.

6. Jang HY, Kim HC, Lee SC, Lee JY. Choice of graft material in relation to maxillary sinus width in internal sinus floor augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010. 68:1859–1868.

7. Kent JN, Block MS. Simultaneous maxillary sinus floor bone grafting and placement of hydroxyapatite-coated implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989. 47:238–242.

8. Johansson B, Grepe AK, Hirsch JM. A clinical study of changes in the volume of the grafts in the atrophic maxilla. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001. 30:157–161.

9. Haas R, Donath K, Fodinger M, Watzek G. Bovine hydroxyapatite for maxillary sinus grafting: comparative histomorphometric findings in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:107–116.

10. Skoglund A, Hising P, Young C. A clinical and histologic examination in humans of the osseous response to implanted natural bone mineral. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997. 12:194–199.

11. Krennmair G, Krainhofner M, Maier H, Weinlander M, Piehslinger E. Computerized tomography-assisted calculation of sinus augmentation volume. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006. 21:907–913.

12. Kullman L, Al-Asfour A, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L. Comparison of radiologic bone height assessents in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007. 22:96–100.

13. Ozyuvaci H, Aktas I, Yerit K, Aydin K, Firatli E. Radiological evaluation of sinus lift operation: what the general radiologist needs to know. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005. 34:199–204.

14. Wanschitz F, Figl M, Wagner A, Rolf E. Measurement of volume changes after sinus floor augmentation with a phycogenic hydroxyapatite. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006. 21:433–438.

15. Zijderveld SA, Schulten EA, Aartman IH, ten Bruggenkate CM. Long-term changes in graft height after maxillary sinus floor elevation with different grafting materials: radiographic evaluation with a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009. 20:691–700.

16. Ozyuvaci H, Bilgic B, Firatli E. Radiologic and histomorphometric evaluation of maxillary sinus grafting with alloplastic graft materials. J Periodontol. 2003. 74:909–915.

17. Kang NY, Kim MR, Kim SJ. Effect of autogenous iliac bone graft into the loose cancellous bone marrow on the osseointegration in the dog tibia. Ewha Med J. 2009. 32:71–77.