3.9 Article

Three-Dimensional Volumetric Analysis After Sinus Grafts

Journal

IMPLANT DENTISTRY
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 170-174

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31827f3576

Keywords

cone-beam computed tomography; dental implant; maxillary sinus; sinus graft

Funding

  1. Chosun University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the augmentation volume of a sinus graft according to the time and graft materials based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and to assess efficacy of a bioabsorbable membrane. Methods: Fourteen patients were investigated, and volumetric analysis was performed using OnDemand 3DTM software (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea). CBCT scans were performed on patients before surgery, immediately after surgery, 6 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. Following this analysis, the volumetric data were compared with the actual grafted volumes. Bioabsorbable membranes were used in all patients to promote the protection of sinus membranes and to guide bone regeneration. Results: Overall, the average percent volume of graft material that remained 6 months after implantation was 82.0%, and the average percent volume of graft material that remained 1 year after surgery was 60.4%. These reductions in the volume of graft material from immediately after surgery until 6 months or 1 year after surgery were shown to be statistically significant (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The slight differences observed among the data indicate that volumetric analysis performed using CBCT can provide highly accurate data. A significant difference was observed in volumetric change over time, but no significant differences were observed between materials. No significant relationship was observed between the resorption of grafted bone and the success rate. (Implant Dent 2013;22:170-174)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available