OSSEODENSIFICATION BY DENSAH BURS VERSUS OSTEOTOME FOR TRANSCRESTAL MAXILLARY SINUS LIFTING WITH SIMULTANEOUS IMPLANT PLACEMENT | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 7, Volume 48, Issue 1, April 2023, Pages 51-58 PDF (527.12 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2022.111046.1238 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohamed Talaat EL-Ghobashy* 1; Ahmed Mamdouh Shaaban1; Lydia Nabil Melek2 | ||
| 1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: Implant placement in posterior maxilla is problematic, not only due to inferior properties of bone but also due to loss of vertical bone height which happens after extraction of posterior teeth. When the required additional height is few millimeters, indirect transcrestal sinus lifting procedures is recommended. This study was carried out to compare clinically transcrestal sinus lifting with Densah burs versus osteotome with simultaneous implant placement. Materials and Methods: This study was designed to be randomized clinical trial, a total of 12 patients with missing maxillary premolars or molars and with limited vertical bone height below the maxillary sinus floor (5 to 8 mm) received implants either with osteotome or with osseodensification transcrestal sinus lifting. The 12 patients were divided equally into 2 groups, group A received oseodensification sinus lifting, group B received osteotome sinus lifting. Clinical follow up was done over 6 months. Results: No significant difference was detected regarding postoperative pain and edema. The P value (0.002*) showed a statistically significant difference in the operation time between the 2 groups. The mean of primary stability in densah bur group was 66.17 ±9.57, while the mean in the osteotome group was 54.83 ±7.19. The P value was (0.043*) showed a significant difference in primary stability between both groups. Also there was a significant difference in secondary stability between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Both osseodensification and osteotome technique showed a good clinical outcome in 6 months follow up, with better implant stability in the osseodensification cases. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Transcrestal; Osteotome; Densah bur; Osseodensification | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,340 PDF Download: 1,712 |
||
