×
Inside Dentistry
March 2016
Volume 12, Issue 3

Conclusions

The trephine core/osteotome technique has been previously described in the literature to facilitate immediate implant placement in the maxillary molar region. In the publications by Fugazzotto,11-14 he was able to place 8.5 mm length implant fixtures utilizing this technique. Few studies to date have shown the benefits of this technique for site development. The case reports presented illustrate modifications to the proposed technique, which facilitate longer length implant placement (>8.5 mm) in the maxillary molar region. These adaptations support previous studies that show an increased success rate for implant lengths greater than 8.5 mm.19 This novel approach has also taken advantage of both single and multiple edentulous sites. The use of multiple trephine cores to efficiently augment the sinus in a single surgical procedure decreases time for re-entry when compared to the lateral window approach.

This technique increases bone height to allow longer length implant placement, and implant success in the posterior maxilla.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Drs. Amy Ovaydi, Nidhi Shah, and Sofia Petrov for assisting on the cases.

Disclosures

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

About the Authors

Anna M. Brunetti, DMD, MDS
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Periodontics
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
Newark, New Jersey
Private Practice
Red Bank, New Jersey

Howard Drew, DMD
Clinical Professor
Department of Periodontics
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
Newark, New Jersey

Andrew Sullivan, DDS
Clinical Professor and Interim Chairman
Department of Periodontics
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
Newark, New Jersey

Joel Pascuzzi, DMD
Clinical Professor
Department of Periodontics
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
Newark, New Jersey

Emil Cappetta, DMD
Clinical Professor
Department of Periodontics
Rutgers School of Dental Medicine
Newark, New Jersey

References

1. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional changes occurring in the maxilla following tooth extraction. Aust Dent J. 1969;14(4):241-244.

2. Lil W, Blahout R, Ulm C, et al. Reduction of the maxillary implant site with the degree of atrophy [in German]. Z Zahnärztl Implantol. 1992;8:54-61.

3. Fugazzotto PA, Wheeler SL, Lindsay JA. Success and failure rates of cylinder implants in type IV bone. J Periodontol. 1993;64(11):1085-1087.

4. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(6):443-476.

5. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Bränemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991;62(1):2-4.

6. Solar P, Aro G, Ulm C, Bernhart T. The effects of tooth loss on the anatomy of the maxilla [in German]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1998;108(9):871-878.

7. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980;38(8):613-616.

8. Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986;30(2):207-229.

9. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(suppl):49-70.

10. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994;15(2):152-160.

11. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J. Long-term success of sinus augmentation using various surgical approaches and grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(1):52-58.

12. Fugazzotto PA. Sinus floor augmentation at the time of maxillary molar extraction: technique and report of preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(4):536-542.

13. Fugazzotto PA. Treatment options for augmentation of the posterior maxilla. Implant Dent. 2000;9(3):281-287.

14. Fugazzotto PA. The modified trephine/osteotome sinus augmentation technique: technical considerations and discussion of indications. Implant Dent. 2001;10(4):259-264.

15. Fugazzotto PA, De PS. Sinus floor augmentation at the time of maxillary molar extraction: success and failure rates of 137 implants in function for up to 3 years. J Periodontol. 2002;73(1):39-44.

16. Toffler M. Staged sinus augmentation using a crestal core elevation procedure and modified osteotomes to minimize membrane perforation. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2002;14(9):767-774.

17. Toffler M. Minimally invasive sinus floor elevation procedures for simultaneous and staged implant placement. NY State Dent J. 2004;70(8):38-44.

18. Kolerman R, Moses O, Artzi Z, et al. Maxillary sinus augmentation by the crestal core elevation technique. J Periodontol. 2011;82(1):42-51.

19. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: a 12-year life-table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(2):194-205.

20. Maridati P, Cremonesi S, Fontana F, Maiorana C. Treatment of a dense PTFE membrane exposure: a case report. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2014;5(Suppl.10):617.

21. O’Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant taper on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(4):474-480.

22. Soltan M, Smiler DG. Trephine bone core sinus elevation graft. Implant Dent. 2004;13(2):148-152.

© 2021 AEGIS Communications | Privacy Policy