Premium
Transcrestal maxillary sinus augmentation: Summers' versus a piezoelectric technique – an experimental cadaver study
Author(s) -
Kühl S.,
Kirmeier R.,
Platzer S.,
Bianco N.,
Jakse N.,
Payer M.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12546
Subject(s) - cadaver , maxillary sinus , dentistry , orthodontics , medicine , anatomy
Objectives Sinus floor augmentation using transalveolar techniques is a successful and predictable procedure. The aim of the study was to compare the performance of conventional hand instruments using mallets and osteotomes with that of piezoelectric–hydrodynamic devices for maxillary sinus floor elevation. Material and methods In 17 undamaged cadaver heads on randomly allocated sites, Schneiderian membrane elevation was carried out transcrestally using piezosurgery and a hydrodynamic device or by conventional hand instrumentation. After simulation of sinus augmentation by the use of a radiopaque impression material, a post‐operative CT scan was carried out and volumes were determined. Statistic significant differences between the two methods were evaluated by nonparametric Mann–Whitney U ‐test with P < 0.05. Results A mean graft volume of 0.29 ± 0.18 cm 3 (0.07–0.60 cm 3 ) was measured for the Summers' technique compared to 0.39 ± 0.32 cm 3 (0.05–1.04 cm 3 ) for the Sinus Physiolift ® technique. There is no statistically significant difference with regard to trauma to the Schneiderian membrane or augmented volume. Conclusions Both techniques generate expedient augmentation volume in the posterior atrophic maxilla. The piezoelectric technique can be recommended as an alternative tool to graft the floor of human maxillary sinuses.