Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Endoscopic Septoplasty with Limited Two-line Resection: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Septal Deviation
Published on: June 20, 2018
Does alveolar ridge preservation reduce the need for sinus floor elevation: A comparative study to spontaneous
Elias Jean-Jacques Khoury1, Keyvan Sagheb1, Bilal Al-Nawas1
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Introduction:
In cases of atrophy in the maxillary posterior region, characterized by reduced vertical bone volume, implant placement becomes challenging. Augmentation procedures like sinus lifts are often needed to address insufficient bone volume. This study aims to explore if alveolar ridge preservation, using a bovine bone substitute and a porcine collagen membrane, significantly decreases the need for sinus lifts compared to natural wound healing after tooth extraction.
Materials And Methods:
In this comparative clinical study, 40 patients requiring a total of 53 extractions were assigned to one of the following groups: a test group with bovine bone substitute material (Straumann® XenoFlex) and a porcine collagen membrane (Jason® membrane), or a control group with spontaneous socket healing. After 6 months, digital volume tomography was performed for implant planning.
Results:
For seven patients from the control group (n = 22 extracted sites) sinus lift augmentations were performed while only four sinus lift procedures were performed in the test group (n = 31 extracted sites), indicating a higher need for sinus augmentation procedures in the control group, however not statistically different on a p value of 0.05 (p = 0.168). In the control group, the mean value of the radiographically measured bone height (mesial and distal) was 11.13 ± 2.12 mm preoperatively before tooth extraction, while it was 11.3 ± 2.17 mm postoperatively after implant placement. In contrast, the mean value in the test group was 11.78 ± 3.09 mm preoperatively and 11.92 ± 2.79 mm postoperatively. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio 0.32; 95% CI: 0.08, 1.26; p = 0.951). The implant survival rate in the control group was 100%, compared to 96.77% in the test group.
Conclusion:
Within the limits of this study, the use of bovine bone substitute and a porcine resorbable membrane after tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla seems to reduce the need for sinus augmentation in comparison to spontaneous healing although the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the Alveolar Ridge Preservation in the test group made external sinus floor elevation unnecessary compared to the control group. The change in radiographically measured bone height pre- and postoperatively showed no significant difference between the two groups.
