Switch to Dark theme

References

Elani HW, Starr JR, Da Silva JD, Gallucci GO. Trends in dental implant use in the U.S., 1999–2016, and projections to 2026. J Dent Res. 2018; 97:(13)1424-1430
Ariji Y, Kuroki T, Moriguchi S, Ariji E, Kanda S. Age changes in the volume of the human maxillary sinus: a study using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23:163-168
Lorkiewicz-Muszynska D, Kociemba W, Rewekant A, Sroka A, Jonczyk-Potoczna K, Patelska-Banaszewska M, Przystanska A. Development of the maxillary sinus from birth to age 18. Postnatal growth pattern. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 79:1393-1400
Koymen R, Gocmen-Mas N, Karacayli U, Ortakoglu K, Ozen T, Yazici AC. Anatomic evaluation of maxillary sinus septa: surgery and radiology. Clin Anat. 2009; 22:563-570
Sakhdari S, Panjnoush M, Eyvazlou A, Niktash A. Determination of the prevalence, height, and location of the maxillary sinus septa using cone beam computed tomography. Implant Dent. 2016; 25:335-340
Schwarz L, Schiebel V, Hof M, Ulm C, Watzek G, Pommer B. Risk factors of membrane perforation and postoperative complications in sinus floor surgery: review of 407 augmentation procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73:1275-1282
Hadar T, Yaniv E, Shvili Y, Koren R, Shvero J. Histopathological changes of the nasal mucosa induced by smoking. Inhal Toxicol. 2009; 21:(13)1119-1122
Chitsazi MT, Shirmohammadi A, Faramarzi M, Esmaieli F, Chitsazi S. Evaluation of the position of the posterior superior alveolar artery in relation to the maxillary sinus using the Cone-Beam computed tomography scans. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9:e394-e399
Tehranchi M, Taleghani F, Shahab S, Nouri A. Prevalence and location of the posterior superior alveolar artery using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2017; 47:39-44
Morley AD, Sharp HR. A review of sinonasal outcome scoring systems – which is best?. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006; 31:103-109
Farhood Z, Schlosser RJ, Pearse ME, Storck KA, Nguyen SA, Soler ZM. Twenty-two-item sino-nasal outcome test in a control population: a cross-sectional study and systematic review. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016; 6:271-277
Katsuyama H, Jensen SS. ITI Treatment Guide Volume 5 – Sinus Floor Elevation Procedures.USA: Quintessence Publishing Co; 2011
Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ. Effective dose of dental CBCT – a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44
Soydan SS, Cubuk S, Bayrak B, Uckan S. Comparative evaluation of simultaneous maxillary sinus floor elevation and implant placement with residual bone heights greater or less than 5 mm. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30:179-183
Al-Dajani M. Incidence, risk factors, and complications of Schneiderian membrane perforation in sinus lift surgery: a meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2016; 25:409-415
Beck-Broichsitter BE, Westhoff D, Behrens E, Wiltfang J, Becker ST. Impact of surgical management in cases of intraoperative membrane perforation during a sinus lift procedure: a follow-up on bone graft stability and implant success. Int J Implant Dent. 2018; 4
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:237-259
Jeong KL, Kim SG, Oh JS, Yoy JS. Implants displaced into the maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2016; 25:547-551
Sgaramella N, Tartaro G, D'Amato S, Santagata M, Colella G. Displacement of dental implants into the maxillary sinus: a retrospective study of twenty one patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18:62-72
Khoury F. Augmentation of the sinus floor with mandibular bone block and simultaneous implantation: a 6-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:557-564
Zijderveld SA, Zerbo IR, van den Bergh JP, Schulten EA, ten Bruggenkate CM. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a beta-tricalcium phosphate (Cerasorb) alone compared to autogenous bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20:432-440
Del Fabbro M, Wallace SS, Testori T. Long-term implant survival in the grafted maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33:773-783
Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:35-51
Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38:667-676
Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Husler J, Hammerle CH, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 – EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:154-169
Graves S, Mahler BA, Javid B, Armellini D, Jensen OT. Maxillary all-on-four therapy using angled implants: a 16-month clinical study of 1110 implants in 276 jaws. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011; 23:277-287
Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:39-49
Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Moss S. Extramaxillary surgical technique: clinical outcome of 352 patients rehabilitated with 747 zygomatic implants with a follow-up between 6 months and 7 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17:e153-e162
Aleksandrowicz P, Kusa-Podkańska M, Grabowska KM, Kotula LZ, Szkatula-Lapina A, Wysokińska-Miszczuk J. Extra-sinus zygomatic implants to avoid chronic sinusitis and prosthetic arch mal-position – 12 years of experience. J Oral Implantol. 2019; 45:73-78
Curi MM, Cardoso CL, Ribeiro KDEC. Retrospective study of pterygoid implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: implant and prosthesis survival rates up to 3 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30:387-383
Candel E, Penarrocha D, Penarrocha M. Rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla with pterygoid implants: a review. J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38:461-466 https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00200
Troeltzsch M, Pache C, Troeltzsch M, Kaeppler G, Ehrenfeld M, Otto S, Probst F. Etiology and clinical characteristics of symptomatic unilateral maxillary sinusitis: a review of 174 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015; 43:1522-1529
Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Minimally invasive removal of non mobile zygomatic dental implants affected by peri-implantitis and chronic sinusitis. J Oral Implantol. 2017; 43:392-294
Webb L, Coleman A, Nixon P. Dental implants: what have we learnt from long-term follow-up?. Dent Update. 2017; 44-1033
Todescan S, Lavigne S, Kelekis-Cholakis A. Guidance for the maintenance care of dental implants: clinical review. J Can Dent Assoc. 2012; 78

The Maxillary Sinus: What the General Dental Team Need to Know Part 4: Dental Implant Treatment and the Effect on Maxillary Sinus Function

From Volume 47, Issue 7, July 2020 | Pages 584-593

Authors

Colin Campbell

BDS, FDS RCS

Specialist in Oral Surgery with sub-specialty interest in Implantology, The Campbell Clinic, Nottingham, NG2 7JS, UK

Articles by Colin Campbell

Garmon W Bell

BDS, MSc, FDC RCS, FFD RCSI(OS)

Associate Specialist Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

Articles by Garmon W Bell

Iain Macleod

BDS, PhD, FDS RCS, FRCR DDRRCR FHEA

Consultant Radiologist, Department of Dental Radiology, Newcastle Dental Hospital, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4BW, UK

Articles by Iain Macleod

James C Darcey

BDS, MSc, MDPH MFGDP, MEndo FDS(Rest Dent)

Consultant and Honorary Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry and Specialist in Endodontics, University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by James C Darcey

Abstract

This paper, the last of a 4-part series, will discuss the impact of dental implant treatment on the health of the maxillary sinus. The need for assessment of maxillary sinus health and function, both clinically and radiographically, will be discussed. Strategies for implant planning that can reduce and mitigate complications will also be discussed, along with common surgical/post-surgery complications and the impact of these on patients.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: The Dental Team should be aware of the factors taken into consideration when implants involving the atrophic maxillary alveolus are planned, or provided, in relation to normal function of the maxillary sinus.

Article

In this fourth and final paper on the maxillary sinus and its importance for the Dental Team, the significance of the maxillary sinus, its structure, adjacent anatomical structures, and function will be looked at with regards to dental implant treatment in the atrophic maxillary alveolus. Dental implant treatment has become a popular treatment option for the replacement of missing teeth over the past two decades.1 Different areas of the mouth pose different challenges for prospective implant treatment. Planning and assessment of suitability for implants in the posterior maxillary area should include consideration of the maxillary sinus.2

While the proximity of the maxillary sinus is important in exodontia and endodontic treatment, a 3-dimensional understanding is vital when placing implants in the posterior maxilla. The shape and volume of the maxillary sinus is best viewed as a 3-sided, pyramidal-shaped cavity within the maxillary bone, often extending into the zygomatic bone, with the base of this pyramid on the medial aspect (lateral nasal wall), and the tip of the pyramid extending into the zygomatic bone. This is appreciated best in a colour atlas of cross-sectional anatomy.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here