Premium
Maxillary sinus floor elevation using hydroxyapatite nano particles vs tenting technique with simultaneous implant placement: A randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Khaled Hossam,
Atef Mohammed,
Hakam Maha
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12859
Subject(s) - implant , maxillary sinus , medicine , dentistry , dental alveolus , radiography , bone density , nuclear medicine , orthodontics , surgery , osteoporosis
Purpose The present study was conducted to evaluate the amount of bone height gain, density values, and implant stability after maxillary sinus floor elevation using graftless tenting technique or the use of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles bone substitute for augmentation with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and Methods A total of 20 sinuses with a residual alveolar bone height ranging from 4‐6 mm were divided into two groups and underwent sinus augmentation using nano hydroxyapatite bone substitute material and the graftless tenting technique with simultaneous implant placement. Computed tomography CT scans and ISQ measurements were conducted to evaluate bone quality, quantity, and implant stability. Results Radiographic analysis revealed that the mean bone height gain of the nano group was (7.0 ± 0.8 mm) compared to (5.0 ± 1.5 mm) in the tent group, which was statistically significant ( P = .002) being higher in the nano group. The mean bone density value of the nano group was (548 ± 25 HU) compared to (420 ± 23 HU) in the tent group, which was statistically significant ( P < .001) being higher in the nano group. The mean ISQ value after 6 months in the nano group was (78 ± 5) compared to (77 ± 5) in the tent group, which was statistically nonsignificant ( P = .901). Conclusion Nano hydroxyapatite bone graft offered superior results in terms of the bone height gain and the relative bone density as compared to graftless tenting technique. However, both techniques showed accepted results regarding implant stability.