Effectiveness, Morbidity, and Costs of Transcrestal and Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation at Sites with Different Residual Bone Heights: A Re-Analysis of Data from a Parallel-Arm Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To comparatively evaluate transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE) and lateral sinus floor elevation (lSFE) at sites with different residual bone heights (RBHs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A re-analysis of data from a parallel-arm, randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE was performed. Within each RBH interval (< 4 mm or ≥ 4 mm), tSFE and lSFE groups were compared for chair time, surgery-related costs, morbidity, and radiographic parameters (including the proportion of the implant surface in direct contact with the radiopaque area [totCON%]). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of 29 and 28 patients in the tSFE and lSFE groups, respectively. Irrespective of RBH, both tSFE and lSFE lead to a median totCON% of 100%. At sites with RBH < 4 mm, pain severity was significantly higher at days 0 and 1 in the tSFE group, with no intergroup difference in the dose of analgesics. LSFE was associated with a significantly higher frequency of bruising and greater cost. At sites with RBH ≥ 4 mm, a significantly lower frequency of postoperative signs/symptoms, less chair time, and lower costs were observed in the tSFE group. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of tSFE or lSFE within the investigated RBH intervals seems to be supported by differences in chair time, costs, and morbidity between the two techniques. At sites with RBH < 4 mm, clinicians preferring tSFE should encourage the administration of analgesics according to a predefined plan in the early postoperative phase. At sites with RBH ≥ 4 mm, tSFE should be preferred to lSFE due to reduced chair time, costs, and morbidity.

Minimal invasiveness in the transcrestal elevation of the maxillary sinus floor: A systematic review.

In the attempt to reduce the invasiveness of a transcrestal sinus floor elevation procedure, different aspects must be considered; that is, the minimization of intra- and postsurgery morbidity, the reduction of treatment time, and the simplification/elimination of the reconstructive technology. Within this context, a systematic literature search was performed for controlled clinical trials evaluating the impact of one or more of these aspects on transcrestal sinus floor elevation invasiveness. Nineteen articles (15 studies) were included. Overall, the results confirmed that transcrestal sinus floor elevation is a minimally invasive and effective option for bone augmentation in the edentulous, atrophic posterior maxilla. By using powered instruments rather than manual osteotomes and hand mallet, the invasiveness of transcrestal sinus floor elevation can be further reduced without affecting its clinical effectiveness. To impact effectively on morbidity, the key elements to consider when selecting instruments for transcrestal sinus floor elevation are (a) their availability as a standardized sequence, to be adapted on predetermined residual bone height, and (b) the possibility to control pressure (eg, with screwable osteotomes) and/or instrument excursion (eg, with stop devices) to fracture the maxillary sinus floor. Among powered instruments, a standardized sequence of drills incorporating a trephine drill seem to be particularly indicated, due to reduced chair time, high tolerability for the patient, and the possibility to isolate a bone core to implement histomorphometric outcomes. At molar extraction sites with an interradicular septum characterized by a height of at least 4 mm, immediate transcrestal sinus floor elevation and implant placement can be considered a valid option to shorten treatment time.