Comparative study between annular bone block embedded in maxillary sinus lift and conventional maxillary sinus lift

To investigate the advantage and disadvantage between annular bone block embedded in maxillary sinus lift and conventional maxillary sinus lift.

One hundred and twenty sinuses from 80 patients of serious insufficient of bone quantity (0-4 mm height of residual bone in the posterior maxilla) were divided into two groups randomly. Each group contained 60 sinuses. By preparing annular bone block at the alveolar ridge crest, 60 sinuses augmentation were carried out by repetitive knocking annular bone block under light force in the group of route from the crest of alveolar bone and 60 mucosa of maxillary sinuses were lifted up by routine fenestration operation on the maxillary lateral wall in the conventional sinus lifting group. Implants were implanted after six months. The perpetual prosthesis was made in 6 months. Misery index of patients, lifting height of sinus floor, the perforating rate of sinus mucosa and the success rate of implantation were compared between two methods. Lifting height of sinus floor was examined through x-ray imaging.

No nostril hemorrhage was found in the group of route from crest sinus lifting whereas two patients occurred nostril hemorrhage in the conventional group; the mean operation time of route group from the crest of alveolar bone and the route group form the lateral wall was (42.82 ± 3.46) min, (88.38 ± 4.37) min, the difference was statistically significant (t = 35.237, P = 0.001); misery index of route group from the crest of alveolar bone and the route group form the lateral wall was (4.20 ± 0.68), (6.34 ± 0.45), the difference was statistically significant (t = 3.056, P = 0.003); lifting height of sinus floor of route group from the crest of alveolar and the route group form the lateral wall was (12.44 ± 2.48) mm, (12.28 ± 2.87) mm, and there was no statistical significance (t = 0.908, P = 0.390).

The route from the crest of alveolar bone could obviously reduce operative wound and postoperative complications, shorten operative time, lessen the trauma of operation, the difference was statistically significant between two methods. Two groups had no significant difference on lifting height of sinus floor, the perforating rate of sinus mucosa and the success rate of implantation.