[Clinical evaluation of two transalveolar methods for sinus augmentation with placing 1 204 implants immediately]

Area of Science:

• Oral Surgery
• Implantology
• Periodontology

Background:

• Posterior maxillary implant surgery often requires bone augmentation due to insufficient bone height.
• Transalveolar sinus floor elevation is a common technique to address this deficiency.
• Comparing different sinus lift techniques is crucial for optimizing clinical outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the clinical outcomes of posterior maxillary implant surgery using the regular transalveolar approach versus the crestal approach-sinus (CAS-KIT) device.
• To evaluate differences in sinus membrane elevation, complication rates, and implant success between the two techniques.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective study of 876 patients (1204 implants) who underwent transalveolar maxillary augmentation between January 2012 and July 2015.
• Patients were divided into two groups: regular transalveolar approach (496 patients, 653 implants) and CAS-KIT approach (380 patients, 551 implants).
• Outcomes assessed included radiological measures of sinus floor elevation, intraoperative complications, postoperative infections, osseointegration, and rehabilitation success.

Main Results:

• The CAS-KIT group achieved a significantly greater mean sinus floor height increase (8.36±4.07 mm) compared to the regular transalveolar group (4.08±3.45 mm).
• Intraoperative membrane perforations were less frequent with the CAS-KIT (31 patients) than the regular transalveolar approach (64 patients).
• No statistically significant differences were found in implant failure rates (overall 4-year survival 97.26%) or postoperative maxillary sinus infection incidence between the two groups.

Conclusions:

• While the regular transalveolar approach is simpler and faster, it results in a smaller bone augmentation range and higher rates of intraoperative membrane perforations.
• The CAS-KIT offers a viable alternative for maxillary sinus augmentation, achieving greater bone height with a reduced incidence of complications.
• Both techniques demonstrate comparable long-term implant survival and postoperative infection rates.