Authors

KeYang Zhou1,#, Zhong Wu2,#, Jing Li1, WeiJin Qin1, NaiDan Zhang1, Yuan Gao3,*

Departments

1Department of Stomatology, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital Of Chengdu Medical College,Pidu District People’s Hospital,Chengdu, Sichuan,611730, PR China - 2Department of Stomatology, Ezhou Central Hospital, Ezhou, Hubei, 436000, PR China - 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rizhao  Stomatological  Hospital, Rizhao, Shandong, 276800, PR China

Abstract

Objective: To explore different application values of maxillary sinus floor elevation and tilted implant placement in the treatment of patients undergoing implant restoration with insufficient residual bone height in the posterior maxillary region and provide more reference for the selection of clinical treatment regimes. 

Methods: 168 teeth from 137 patients undergoing implant restoration with a residual bone height of less than 6mm in maxillary posterior region admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to March 2020 were included in this study. Among them, 80 teeth from 67 patients were treated with maxillary sinus floor elevation (Group A) and 88 teeth from 70 patients were treated with tilted implant placement (Group B). The cumulative implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone resorption and incidence of postoperative complications of 2 groups were compared. 

Results: There was no significant difference between 2 groups in cumulative implant survival rate during the follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in peri-implant marginal bone resorption after 12 months, 24 months and 36 months of follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in the incidence of postoperative complications (P>0.05). 

Conclusion: Maxillary sinus floor elevation and tilted implant placement have similar overall efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients undergoing implant restoration with insufficient residual bone height in the posterior maxillary region.

Keywords

maxillary sinus floor elevation, tilted placement, maxilla, implantation.

DOI:

10.19193/0393-6384_2021_4_375