Prevention and management of intra-operative complications in maxillary sinus augmentation: A review.

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

Published: October 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • Maxillary sinus floor elevation can be done via two techniques: the lateral approach, which allows direct access to the sinus through a bony window, and the less invasive transcrestal approach.
  • The most frequent complication in both methods is perforation of the sinus membrane, with the lateral approach showing a 15.7% to 23.1% perforation rate, while the transcrestal approach has a lower rate of 3.1% to 6.4%, but is harder to manage due to its blind nature.
  • Key prevention strategies include understanding anatomical factors, mastering surgical skills, and collaborating with ENT specialists to address potential infectious complications.

Article Abstract

Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.13397DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transcrestal approach
16
maxillary sinus
12
lateral approach
12
approach
8
intraoperative complications
8
sinus
6
prevention management
4
management intra-operative
4
complications
4
intra-operative complications
4

Similar Publications

Purpose: Currently, maxillary sinus floor (SF) elevation is based on off-the-shelf allogeneic, xenogeneic or synthetic bone augmentation materials (BAM) that are implanted via an open lateral sinus wall approach (OSFE). However, this invasive method is associated with postoperative complications caused by an inadequate blood supply of the alveolar ridge. Balloon-assisted procedures are minimal invasive alternatives with lower complication rates.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Prevention and management of intra-operative complications in maxillary sinus augmentation: A review.

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

October 2024

Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

Article Synopsis
  • Maxillary sinus floor elevation can be done via two techniques: the lateral approach, which allows direct access to the sinus through a bony window, and the less invasive transcrestal approach.
  • The most frequent complication in both methods is perforation of the sinus membrane, with the lateral approach showing a 15.7% to 23.1% perforation rate, while the transcrestal approach has a lower rate of 3.1% to 6.4%, but is harder to manage due to its blind nature.
  • Key prevention strategies include understanding anatomical factors, mastering surgical skills, and collaborating with ENT specialists to address potential infectious complications.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Osseodensification is a novel approach that has significantly advanced the field of implant dentistry, particularly in the context of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation. This technique involves the use of specially designed burs that compact and densify bone along the osteotomy walls, thereby enhancing implant primary stability and facilitating osseointegration in low-density bone. This article reviews the historical evolution of implant site preparation, and the biomechanical, histological, and clinical evidence of osseodensification with a special focus on its application in sinus floor augmentation.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Maxillary sinus floor elevation is a surgical procedure intended to increase the volume of the bone vertically to accommodate dental implant placement. This intervention is frequently required for implant installation in the posterior maxilla, where the bone may be insufficient for securing implants of necessary length and stability. Sinus floor elevation can be completed either through a direct approach with a "window" through the lateral wall of the alveolar ridge or an indirect "transcrestal/transalveolar" sinus floor elevation (TSFE), which accesses the sinus floor through the crest of the edentulous ridge.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A Review of Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques: Lateral Window, Transcrestal, Graft Materials, and Biologics.

Compend Contin Educ Dent

September 2024

Former Assistant Clinical Professor, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, Maryland; Private Practice, Silver Spring, Maryland; Diplomate, International Congress of Oral Implantologists.

Various approaches to implant placement in the atrophic posterior maxilla are currently advocated in the literature. Such strategies range from the use of block bone graft, to short, tilted, and zygomatic implants, to sinus floor elevation (SFE). SFE has shown to be a predictable surgical procedure to increase bone height in the posterior maxilla.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!