Hydrodynamic Ultrasonic Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation Technique Versus Closed Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation. (humsfe)
Comparative Study of Sinus Floor Elevation Between Hydrodynamic Ultrasonic Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation Technique (Intralift Technique) Versus Closed Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation.
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Detailed Description
An essential condition for success in dental implant treatment is the amount and quality of bone in the area on which we decide to place the implant after careful diagnosis and planning. The posterior area of the upper jaw has anatomical features that make it unique compared to other areas, mainly due to the presence of the maxillary sinus. After tooth loss there is progressive bone resorption, combined with sinus pneumatization and loss of bone height and quality, which greatly hinders the placement of dental implant.
Sinus lifting procedures are performed routinely to provide the required height of proper and stable bone tissue around the dental implants to be inserted. The surgical technique of maxillary sinus Schneiderian membrane (MSSM) lifting with immediate/simultaneous installation of dental implants, generally results in significant bone formation. The recently reported graftless MSSM elevation procedure and the subsequent augmentation of bone have greatly changed our perspective of bone neoformation potential. The blood clot formed under the lifted MSSM appears to be of critical importance in bone neoformation potential, precluding the need for exogenous graft materials In elevation with the rotary technique, the main intraoperative complication is perforation of Schneider's membrane, which is observed in between 10-35% of all such operations, and which usually occurs in the osteotomy drilling phase while preparing the window for access to the sinus With the purpose of reducing the risk of perforating Schneider's membrane, vestibule osteotomy using ultrasound has been proposed, as this reduces the risk of soft tissue damage and percentage membrane perforation to 7%. Some studies in the literature are preliminary descriptions of the technique, while others present isolated cases and others in turn report case series - no significant differences being observed between the two techniques The selective cutting is the result of the limited amplitude. At this amplitude, only mineralized tissue will be cut, because soft tissue requires frequencies of greater than 50 kHz. Therefore, the use of piezoelectric instruments will reduce the risk of nerve damage. The reduction of overheating is explained by the generation of a cavitation effect in the irrigation solution due to the mechanical micro-movements at a frequency of approximately 25-30 kHz. This also accounts for reduced bleeding, which means better surgical visibility and increased safety.
Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane doubles the risk for the incidence of sinusitis or infection. Therefore, it is of great importance that any perforation should be avoided. The use of the piezoelectric device reduces the frequency of membrane perforation among surgeons with limited experience. Specific tips can even decrease the risk of accidental or iatrogenic perforations.
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
-
The following inclusion criteria will be established: (Llopet et al., 2014) Inclusion criteria: edentulous maxilla in premolar-molar areas with a residual ridge height of 9 mm or less.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Exclusion criteria: sinuses with septa in the operated area, polyps, sequelae of fistulas or fractures.
Cases for current study will be selected free from local pathosis. Patients will be free from any systemic disease that could affect their reparative power.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: humsfe
Sinus Floor Elevation Between Hydrodynamic Ultrasonic Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation Technique (Intralift Technique)
|
Sinus Floor Elevation Between Hydrodynamic Ultrasonic Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation Technique (Intralift Technique) and implant placement
Other Names:
|
|
Active Comparator: closed sinus lift
transcrestal maxilllary sinus floor elevation
|
transdcrestal sinus lift and immediate implant placment
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
gained bone height
Time Frame: 3 month
|
measured in millimeters by cone beam computed tomography
|
3 month
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Study Chair: Basma Ga Mousa, phd, Cairo University
- Study Chair: Alaa Sh Emara, phd, Cairo University
- Study Chair: Mohamed S El Hadidy, phd, Cairo University
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Velazquez-Cayon R, Romero-Ruiz MM, Torres-Lagares D, Perez-Dorao B, Wainwright M, Abalos-Labruzzi C, Gutierrez-Perez JL. Hydrodynamic ultrasonic maxillary sinus lift: review of a new technique and presentation of a clinical case. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Mar 1;17(2):e271-5. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17430.
- Barone A, Santini S, Sbordone L, Crespi R, Covani U. A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Jan-Feb;21(1):81-5.
- Vercellotti T, Nevins ML, Kim DM, Nevins M, Wada K, Schenk RK, Fiorellini JP. Osseous response following resective therapy with piezosurgery. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005 Dec;25(6):543-9.
- Chipaila N, Marini R, Sfasciotti GL, Cielo A, Bonanome L, Monaco A. Graftless sinus augmentation technique with contextual placement of implants: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2014 Dec 17;8:437. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-8-437.
- Llopet J, Montaudon M, Guillaud E, Ella B. Comparison of 2 crestal sinus floor lift techniques performed on human cadavers. Implant Dent. 2014 Oct;23(5):626-32. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000143.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Anticipated)
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- oral surgery 14285
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.