Show simple item record

The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure

dc.contributor.authorWen, Shih‐chengen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Yen‐huaen_US
dc.contributor.authorYang, Yeuh‐chaoen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom‐layen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-07T20:42:56Z
dc.date.available2016-12-01T14:33:06Zen
dc.date.issued2015-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationWen, Shih‐cheng ; Lin, Yen‐hua ; Yang, Yeuh‐chao ; Wang, Hom‐lay (2015). "The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure." Clinical Oral Implants Research 26(10): 1158-1164.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/113735
dc.description.abstractObjectivesSchneiderian membrane perforation is one of the main complications during sinus augmentation. The reasons may be associated with surgical technique, septum, inadequate ridge height, and membrane thickness. However, reports that used cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) to quantify the thickness of sinus membrane were limited. The aims of this retrospective study were: to study the correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate during transcrestal sinus lift and to propose a classification system of sinus membrane thickness based upon CBCT data.Material and methodsOne hundred and twenty‐two subjects who received dental implant restorations over posterior maxilla with a total of 185 transcrestal sinus lift procedures between years 2010 to 2013 were selected consequently. Each patient selected had to have taken CBCT in the initial examination and immediately after surgery. The membrane thickness, perforation rate, residual bone height, and elevated bone height were recorded and processed for statistical analysis.ResultsThe mean thickness of the Schneiderian membrane was 1.78 ± 1.99 mm. There was a significant correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate (P < 0.05), and the perforation rate was higher in thicker (≥3 mm) and thinner membrane (≤0.5 mm). Among the thickness group, Class B (between ≥1 and <2 mm) had the lowest perforation rate. No significant difference was between the perforation and the membrane morphology. A negative relationship between residual bone height and membrane thickness was found. Trend showed that in the thicker and the thinner residual bone height, the higher the perforation rate would be.ConclusionsThere was a significant correlation between membrane thickness and perforation rate. The perforation rate was lowest when the thickness was 1.5–2 mm.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.othertranscrestalen_US
dc.subject.othercone‐beam computed tomographyen_US
dc.subject.othermembrane perforationen_US
dc.subject.othermembrane thicknessen_US
dc.subject.othersinus liften_US
dc.titleThe influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/113735/1/clr12429.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.12429en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScala, A., Botticelli, D., Faeda, R.S., Garcia Rangel, I. Jr, Americo de Oliveira, J. & Lang, N.P. ( 2012 ) Lack of influence of the schneiderian membrane in forming new bone apical to implants simultaneously installed with sinus floor elevation: an experimental study in monkeys. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23: 175 – 181.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNedir, R., Bischof, M., Vazquez, L., Szmukler‐Moncler, S. & Bernard, J.P. ( 2006 ) Osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting material: a 1‐year prospective pilot study with iti implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research 17: 679 – 686.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNkenke, E. & Stelzle, F. ( 2009 ) Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant placement using autogenous bone or bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20 ( Suppl. 4 ): 124 – 133.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhothikhun, S., Suphanantachat, S., Chuenchompoonut, V. & Nisapakultorn, K. ( 2012 ) Cone‐beam computed tomographic evidence of the association between periodontal bone loss and mucosal thickening of the maxillary sinus. Journal of Periodontology 83: 557 – 564.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePjetursson, B.E., Ignjatovic, D., Matuliene, G., Bragger, U., Schmidlin, K. & Lang, N.P. ( 2009 ) Transalveolar maxillary sinus floor elevation using osteotomes with or without grafting material. Part II: radiographic tissue remodeling. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20: 677 – 683.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePjetursson, B.E., Tan, W.C., Zwahlen, M. & Lang, N.P. ( 2008 ) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35: 216 – 240.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePommer, B., Dvorak, G., Jesch, P., Palmer, R.M., Watzek, G. & Gahleitner, A. ( 2012 ) Effect of maxillary sinus floor augmentation on sinus membrane thickness in computed tomography. Journal of Periodontology 83: 551 – 556.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePommer, B., Unger, E., Suto, D., Hack, N. & Watzek, G. ( 2009 ) Mechanical properties of the schneiderian membrane in vitro. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20: 633 – 637.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceQuirynen, M., Lefever, D., Hellings, P. & Jacobs, R. ( 2014 ) Transient swelling of the schneiderian membrane after transversal sinus augmentation: a pilot study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25: 36 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReiser, G.M., Rabinovitz, Z., Bruno, J., Damoulis, P.D. & Griffin, T.J. ( 2001 ) Evaluation of maxillary sinus membrane response following elevation with the crestal osteotome technique in human cadavers. The International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants 16: 833 – 840.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwartz‐Arad, D., Herzberg, R. & Dolev, E. ( 2004 ) The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. Journal of Periodontology 75: 511 – 516.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoikkonen, K. & Ainamo, A. ( 1995 ) Radiographic maxillary sinus findings in the elderly. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 80: 487 – 491.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSrouji, S., Kizhner, T., Ben David, D., Riminucci, M., Bianco, P. & Livne, E. ( 2009 ) The schneiderian membrane contains osteoprogenitor cells: in vivo and in vitro study. Calcified Tissue International 84: 138 – 145.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSummers, R.B. ( 1994 ) The osteotome technique: Part 3–less invasive methods of elevating the sinus floor. Compendium 15: 698, 700, 702–694 passim; quiz 710.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTadjoedin, E.S., de Lange, G.L., Bronckers, A.L., Lyaruu, D.M. & Burger, E.H. ( 2003 ) Deproteinized cancellous bovine bone (bio‐oss) as bone substitute for sinus floor elevation. A retrospective, histomorphometrical study of five cases. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 30: 261 – 270.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTan, W.C., Lang, N.P., Zwahlen, M. & Pjetursson, B.E. ( 2008 ) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35 ( Suppl. 8 ): 241 – 254.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTos, M. & Mogensen, C. ( 1979 ) Mucus production in the nasal sinuses. Acta Oto‐Laryngologica Supplementum 360: 131 – 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVlassis, J.M. & Fugazzotto, P.A. ( 1999 ) A classification system for sinus membrane perforations during augmentation procedures with options for repair. Journal of Periodontology 70: 692 – 699.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWallace, S.S. & Froum, S.J. ( 2003 ) Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Annals of Periodontology 8: 328 – 343.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang, H.L. & Katranji, A. ( 2008 ) Abc sinus augmentation classification. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 28: 383 – 389.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYamamichi, N., Itose, T., Neiva, R. & Wang, H.L. ( 2008 ) Long‐term evaluation of implant survival in augmented sinuses: a case series. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 28: 163 – 169.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYilmaz, H.G. & Tozum, T.F. ( 2012 ) Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height, and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? Journal of Periodontology 83: 420 – 425.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhn, S.H., Park, E.J. & Kim, E.S. ( 2012 ) Reamer‐mediated transalveolar sinus floor elevation without osteotome and simultaneous implant placement in the maxillary molar area: clinical outcomes of 391 implants in 380 patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23: 866 – 872.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAimetti, M., Massei, G., Morra, M., Cardesi, E. & Romano, F. ( 2008 ) Correlation between gingival phenotype and schneiderian membrane thickness. The International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants 23: 1128 – 1132.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnduze‐Acher, G., Brochery, B., Felizardo, R., Valentini, P., Katsahian, S. & Bouchard, P. ( 2013 ) Change in sinus membrane dimension following sinus floor elevation: a retrospective cohort study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 24: 1123 – 1129.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArdekian, L., Oved‐Peleg, E., Mactei, E.E. & Peled, M. ( 2006 ) The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery 64: 277 – 282.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAvila‐Ortiz, G., Neiva, R., Galindo‐Moreno, P., Rudek, I., Benavides, E. & Wang, H.L. ( 2012 ) Analysis of the influence of residual alveolar bone height on sinus augmentation outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23: 1082 – 1088.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker, S.T., Terheyden, H., Steinriede, A., Behrens, E., Springer, I. & Wiltfang, J. ( 2008 ) Prospective observation of 41 perforations of the schneiderian membrane during sinus floor elevation. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19: 1285 – 1289.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShanbhag, S., Karnik, P., Shirke, P. & Shanbhag, V. ( 2014 ) Cone‐beam computed tomographic analysis of sinus membrane thickness, ostium patency, and residual ridge heights in the posterior maxilla: implications for sinus floor elevation. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25: 755 – 760.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenavides, E., Rios, H.F., Ganz, S.D., An, C.H., Resnik, R., Reardon, G.T., Feldman, S.J., Mah, J.K., Hatcher, D., Kim, M.J., Sohn, D.S., Palti, A., Perel, M.L., Judy, K.W., Misch, C.E. & Wang, H.L. ( 2012 ) Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the international congress of oral implantologists consensus report. Implant Dentistry 21: 78 – 86.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan den Bergh, J.P., ten Bruggenkate, C.M., Disch, F.J. & Tuinzing, D.B. ( 2000 ) Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clinical Oral Implants Research 11: 256 – 265.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyne, P.J. & James, R.A. ( 1980 ) Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. Journal of Oral Surgery 38: 613 – 616.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChan, H.L., Oh, T.J., Fu, J.H., Benavides, E., Avila‐Ortiz, G. & Wang, H.L. ( 2013 ) Sinus augmentation via transcrestal approach: a comparison between the balloon and osteotome technique in a cadaver study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 24: 985 – 990.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDel Fabbro, M., Corbella, S., Weinstein, T., Ceresoli, V. & Taschieri, S. ( 2012 ) Implant survival rates after osteotome‐mediated maxillary sinus augmentation: a systematic review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14 ( Suppl. 1 ): e159 – e168.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngelke, W. & Deckwer, I. ( 1997 ) Endoscopically controlled sinus floor augmentation. A preliminary report. Clinical Oral Implants Research 8: 527 – 531.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFerrigno, N., Laureti, M. & Fanali, S. ( 2006 ) Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: a 12‐year life‐table analysis from a prospective study on 588 iti implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research 17: 194 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris, D., Horner, K., Grondahl, K., Jacobs, R., Helmrot, E., Benic, G.I., Bornstein, M.M., Dawood, A. & Quirynen, M. ( 2012 ) E.A.O. Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the european association for osseointegration at the medical university of warsaw. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23: 1243 – 1253.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHernandez‐Alfaro, F., Torradeflot, M.M. & Marti, C. ( 2008 ) Prevalence and management of schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus‐lift procedures. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19: 91 – 98.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanner, S.F., Caversaccio, M.D., Dubach, P., Sendi, P., Buser, D. & Bornstein, M.M. ( 2011 ) Characteristics and dimensions of the schneiderian membrane: a radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography in patients referred for dental implant surgery in the posterior maxilla. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22: 1446 – 1453.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatranji, A., Fotek, P. & Wang, H.L. ( 2008 ) Sinus augmentation complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dentistry 17: 339 – 349.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLundgren, S., Andersson, S., Gualini, F. & Sennerby, L. ( 2004 ) Bone reformation with sinus membrane elevation: a new surgical technique for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 6: 165 – 173.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.