Research Article
Year 2021,
Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 163 - 169, 31.05.2021
Abstract
References
- 1. Lerno P. Identification using the maxillary sinus. Chir Dent Fr. 1983; 53: 39-40.
- 2. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, et al. A cadaveric study of maxillary sinus size as an aid in bone grafting of the maxillary sinus floor. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56: 1158-1163.
- 3. Anagnostopoulou S, Venieratos D, Spyropoulos N. Classification of human maxillar sinuses according to their geometric features. Anat Anz. 1991; 173: 121-130.
- 4. Ariji Y, Kuroki T, Moriguchi S, et al. Age changes in the volume of the human maxillary sinus: a study using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23: 163-168.
- 5. Tatum JH. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986; 30: 207-229.
- 6. Lopez MA, Andreasi MB, Confalone L, et al. CRESTAL SINUS LIFT USING A FLUIDO-DYNAMIC COMPUTER GUIDED PRECISE AND ATRAUMATIC TECHNIQUE. J Biol Regul Homeost agents. 2015; 29: 67-73.
- 7. Zitzmann NU, Schärer P. Sinus elevation procedures in the resorbed posterior maxilla: Comparison of the crestal and lateral approaches. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 85: 8-17.
- 8. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, et al. Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 11-45.
- 9. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, et al. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004; 24: 565-577.
- 10. Lin YH, Yang YC, Wen SC, et al. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during lateral window sinus augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 612-617.
- 11. Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, et al. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int Journal Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 1128-1132.
- 12. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20: 416-424.
- 13. Hallman M, Hedin M, Sennerby L, et al. A prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 277-284.
- 14. Valentini P, Abensur D. Maxillary sinus floor elevation for implant placement with demineralized freeze-dried bone and bovine bone (Bio-Oss): a clinical study of 20 patients. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 1997; 17: 232-241.
- 15. Quirynen M, Lamoral Y, Dekeyser C, et al. The CT scan standard reconstruction technique for reliable jaw bone volume determination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990; 5: 36-41.
- 16. Gulec M, Tassoker M, Magat G, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of the maxillary sinus: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Folia Morphol. 2019; doi: 10.5603/FM.a2019.0106.
- 17. Kahnberg KE, Nilsson P, Hirsch JM, et al. Sinus lifting procedure: I. One‐stage surgery with bone transplant and implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 479-487.
- 18. Wang H-L, Katranji A. ABC sinus augmentation classification. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2008; 28; 383-389.
- 19. Kraut RA. A cadaveric study of maxillary sinus size as an aid in bone grafting of the maxillary sinus floor. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56: 1163.
- 20. Schaeffer JP. The sinus maxillaris and its relations in the embryo, child, and adult man. Am J Anat. 1910; 10: 313-368.
- 21. Stutzki M, Jahns E, Mandapathil MM, et al. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging. Acta oto-laryngol. 2015;135:1337-1343.
- 22. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, et al. Measurement of maxillary sinus volume using computerized tomographic images. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 811-818.
- 23. Emirzeoglu M, Sahin B, Bilgic S, et al. Volumetric evaluation of the paranasal sinuses in normal subjects using computer tomography images: a stereological study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007; 34: 191-195.
- 24. Belgin CA, Colak M, Adiguzel O, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different age and sex groups using CBCT. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 276(5): 1493-1499.
- 25. Dellavia C, Speroni S, Pellegrini G, et al. A new method to evaluate volumetric changes in sinus augmentation procedure. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16: 684-690.
- 26. Lawson W, Patel ZM, Lin FY. The development and pathologic processes that influence maxillary sinus pneumatization. Anat Rec: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology. 2008; 291: 1554-1563.
- 27. Farina R, Pramstraller M, Franceschetti G, et al. Alveolar ridge dimensions in maxillary posterior sextants: a retrospective comparative study of dentate and edentulous sites using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 1138-1144.
- 28. TAKAHASHI Y, WATANABE T, IIMURA A, et al. A study of the maxillary sinus volume in elderly persons using Japanese cadavers. Okajimas Folia Anat Japonica. 2016; 93: 21-27.
- 29. Park I-H, Song JS, Choi H, et al. Volumetric study in the development of paranasal sinuses by CT imaging in Asian: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 74: 1347-1350.
- 30. Kwon JJ, Hwang J, Kim YD, et al. Automatic three‐dimensional analysis of bone volume and quality change after maxillary sinus augmentation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 1148-1155.
- 31. Sonoda T, Harada T, Yamamichi N, et al. Association Between Bone Graft Volume and Maxillary Sinus Membrane Elevation Height. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 735-740.
- 32. Nagla'a A, Bahammam MA. Cone Beam CT-Based Preoperative Volumetric Estimation of Bone Graft Required for Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation, Compared with Intraoperative Findings: A Pilot Study. Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 820-826.
- 33. Alayan J, Ivanovski S. A prospective controlled trial comparing xenograft/autogenous bone and collagen‐stabilized xenograft for maxillary sinus augmentation—Complications, patient‐reported outcomes and volumetric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 248-262.
- 34. Sahlstrand-Johnson P, Jannert M, Strömbeck A, et al. Computed tomography measurements of different dimensions of maxillary and frontal sinuses. BMC Med Imaging. 2011; 11: 8.
- 35. Quirynen M, Lefever D, Hellings P, et al. Transient swelling of the S chneiderian membrane after transversal sinus augmentation: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 36-41.
- 36. Makary C, Menhall A, Rebaudi A. Early postoperative reactions following lateral sinus floor elevation using piezosurgery: A radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 888-894.
- 37. Makary C, Rebaudi A, Menhall A, et al. Changes in Sinus Membrane Thickness After Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation: A Radiographic Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 331-337.
- 38. Deepthi B, Shetty S, Babu C, et al. Correlation between gingival phenotype, residual ridge height and the Schneiderian membrane. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2012; 3: 111-115.
Year 2021,
Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 163 - 169, 31.05.2021
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to calculate the volume of the maxillary sinus and grafted part of it with different modes of three-dimensional reconstruction software.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective volumetric cone-beam computed tomography study was carried out on 21 patients/ 36 maxillary sinuses who had undergone maxillary sinus lift surgery using a lateral approach, between 2010 and 2016 at the Department Periodontology. All statistical analyses were performed by using the NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System, Kaysville, Utah, U.S.A.) software. P values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Results: The mean volume of the right maxillary sinus cavity was 15.37 cm³ while for the left it was 15.90 cm³. There was no statistically significant difference between right and left maxillary sinus volumes (p>0.05). An occupied portion of the sinus cavity after lateral sinus floor elevation surgery was approximately 14.87 %. Furthermore, the volume through manual and automatical modes of the software do not affect the results (p>0.05). The right and left sides of the maxillary sinus volumes were not different from each other. Gender and measuring mode was not found to be related to volumetric values of the maxillary sinus cavity.
Conclusions: The grafted volume of the sinus cavity was defined as a safe volume in terms of serious complications during and after the surgery.
References
- 1. Lerno P. Identification using the maxillary sinus. Chir Dent Fr. 1983; 53: 39-40.
- 2. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, et al. A cadaveric study of maxillary sinus size as an aid in bone grafting of the maxillary sinus floor. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56: 1158-1163.
- 3. Anagnostopoulou S, Venieratos D, Spyropoulos N. Classification of human maxillar sinuses according to their geometric features. Anat Anz. 1991; 173: 121-130.
- 4. Ariji Y, Kuroki T, Moriguchi S, et al. Age changes in the volume of the human maxillary sinus: a study using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23: 163-168.
- 5. Tatum JH. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986; 30: 207-229.
- 6. Lopez MA, Andreasi MB, Confalone L, et al. CRESTAL SINUS LIFT USING A FLUIDO-DYNAMIC COMPUTER GUIDED PRECISE AND ATRAUMATIC TECHNIQUE. J Biol Regul Homeost agents. 2015; 29: 67-73.
- 7. Zitzmann NU, Schärer P. Sinus elevation procedures in the resorbed posterior maxilla: Comparison of the crestal and lateral approaches. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 85: 8-17.
- 8. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, et al. Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 11-45.
- 9. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, et al. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004; 24: 565-577.
- 10. Lin YH, Yang YC, Wen SC, et al. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during lateral window sinus augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 612-617.
- 11. Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, et al. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int Journal Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 1128-1132.
- 12. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20: 416-424.
- 13. Hallman M, Hedin M, Sennerby L, et al. A prospective 1-year clinical and radiographic study of implants placed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine hydroxyapatite and autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 277-284.
- 14. Valentini P, Abensur D. Maxillary sinus floor elevation for implant placement with demineralized freeze-dried bone and bovine bone (Bio-Oss): a clinical study of 20 patients. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 1997; 17: 232-241.
- 15. Quirynen M, Lamoral Y, Dekeyser C, et al. The CT scan standard reconstruction technique for reliable jaw bone volume determination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990; 5: 36-41.
- 16. Gulec M, Tassoker M, Magat G, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric analysis of the maxillary sinus: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Folia Morphol. 2019; doi: 10.5603/FM.a2019.0106.
- 17. Kahnberg KE, Nilsson P, Hirsch JM, et al. Sinus lifting procedure: I. One‐stage surgery with bone transplant and implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 479-487.
- 18. Wang H-L, Katranji A. ABC sinus augmentation classification. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2008; 28; 383-389.
- 19. Kraut RA. A cadaveric study of maxillary sinus size as an aid in bone grafting of the maxillary sinus floor. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 56: 1163.
- 20. Schaeffer JP. The sinus maxillaris and its relations in the embryo, child, and adult man. Am J Anat. 1910; 10: 313-368.
- 21. Stutzki M, Jahns E, Mandapathil MM, et al. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging. Acta oto-laryngol. 2015;135:1337-1343.
- 22. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, et al. Measurement of maxillary sinus volume using computerized tomographic images. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 811-818.
- 23. Emirzeoglu M, Sahin B, Bilgic S, et al. Volumetric evaluation of the paranasal sinuses in normal subjects using computer tomography images: a stereological study. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007; 34: 191-195.
- 24. Belgin CA, Colak M, Adiguzel O, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different age and sex groups using CBCT. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 276(5): 1493-1499.
- 25. Dellavia C, Speroni S, Pellegrini G, et al. A new method to evaluate volumetric changes in sinus augmentation procedure. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16: 684-690.
- 26. Lawson W, Patel ZM, Lin FY. The development and pathologic processes that influence maxillary sinus pneumatization. Anat Rec: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology. 2008; 291: 1554-1563.
- 27. Farina R, Pramstraller M, Franceschetti G, et al. Alveolar ridge dimensions in maxillary posterior sextants: a retrospective comparative study of dentate and edentulous sites using computerized tomography data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 1138-1144.
- 28. TAKAHASHI Y, WATANABE T, IIMURA A, et al. A study of the maxillary sinus volume in elderly persons using Japanese cadavers. Okajimas Folia Anat Japonica. 2016; 93: 21-27.
- 29. Park I-H, Song JS, Choi H, et al. Volumetric study in the development of paranasal sinuses by CT imaging in Asian: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 74: 1347-1350.
- 30. Kwon JJ, Hwang J, Kim YD, et al. Automatic three‐dimensional analysis of bone volume and quality change after maxillary sinus augmentation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 1148-1155.
- 31. Sonoda T, Harada T, Yamamichi N, et al. Association Between Bone Graft Volume and Maxillary Sinus Membrane Elevation Height. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 735-740.
- 32. Nagla'a A, Bahammam MA. Cone Beam CT-Based Preoperative Volumetric Estimation of Bone Graft Required for Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation, Compared with Intraoperative Findings: A Pilot Study. Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 820-826.
- 33. Alayan J, Ivanovski S. A prospective controlled trial comparing xenograft/autogenous bone and collagen‐stabilized xenograft for maxillary sinus augmentation—Complications, patient‐reported outcomes and volumetric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 248-262.
- 34. Sahlstrand-Johnson P, Jannert M, Strömbeck A, et al. Computed tomography measurements of different dimensions of maxillary and frontal sinuses. BMC Med Imaging. 2011; 11: 8.
- 35. Quirynen M, Lefever D, Hellings P, et al. Transient swelling of the S chneiderian membrane after transversal sinus augmentation: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 36-41.
- 36. Makary C, Menhall A, Rebaudi A. Early postoperative reactions following lateral sinus floor elevation using piezosurgery: A radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 888-894.
- 37. Makary C, Rebaudi A, Menhall A, et al. Changes in Sinus Membrane Thickness After Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation: A Radiographic Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 331-337.
- 38. Deepthi B, Shetty S, Babu C, et al. Correlation between gingival phenotype, residual ridge height and the Schneiderian membrane. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2012; 3: 111-115.
There are 38 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | May 31, 2021 |
| Submission Date | January 11, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021Volume: 24 Issue: 2 |
Cited By
Vertical Bone Augmentation with GBR Pocket Technique: Surgical Procedure and Preliminary Results
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3243
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.