Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION USING HATCH REAMER TECHNIQUE AND OSTEOTOME TECHNIQUE IN SINUS FLOOR ELEVATION

상악동저 거상술 시 Osteotome 술식과 Hatch Reamer 술식의 비교평가

  • Cho, Seong-Woong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sun Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Jung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sun Dental Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Dong-Keun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sun Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Chin-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 조성웅 (대전선치과병원 구강악안면외과) ;
  • 김상중 (대전선치과병원 구강악안면외과) ;
  • 이동근 (대전선치과병원 구강악안면외과) ;
  • 김진수 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Received : 2009.09.21
  • Accepted : 2010.02.26
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Many edentulous posterior maxilla are found to be compromised by alveolar resorption and increased pneumatization of the sinus. One of the surgical procedures to overcome this anatomical limitation is sinus floor elevation with bone graft, which is reported as more appropriate and more successful procedure. Commonly, if the residual bone height is over 5mm, sinus floor elevation is operated through transcrestal approach using osteotome technique. But, it is possible for patients to feel discomfort during operation and dizziness after operation while malleting, sinus floor elevation, using osteotome technique. Some instruments and methods has been used to overcome these problems and use more easily. The aim of this study is to compare between the surgical procedure of sinus floor elevation using Hatch reamer technique and that of sinus floor elevation using osteotome technique. From 2004 Feb to 2007 Oct, we investigate patients (osteotome group: 72, Hatch reamer group: 70) who were given implant surgery with sinus floor elevation (osteotome group: 92, Hatch reamer group: 98). We analysed gender, age, residual bone height, amount of sinus floor elevation, used graft material, total success rate, failure rate by residual bone height and implant type and discomfort during operation, etc. The results obtained were as follows. 1. In the amount of sinus elevation was osteotome group was $3.85{\pm}1.02\;mm$ and Hatch reamer group was $3.93{\pm}1.38\;mm$. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). 2. At the total success rate, osteotome group was 92.4% and Hatch reamer group was 94.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). 3. On the discomfort during the operation by using numerical rating scale, osteotome group was $2.87{\pm}0.83$ and Hatch reamer group was $1.12{\pm}0.64$. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). The Hatch reamer group clinical results was similar to osteotome group and we thought that Hatch reamer technique can overcome the faults of osteotome technique.

Keywords

References

  1. Williamson RA : Rehabilitation of the resorbed maxilla and mandible using autogenous bone graft and osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11 : 476, 1996.
  2. Hurzeler MB, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL et al : Reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with dental implants in the augmented maxillary sinus : A 5-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11 : 466, 1996 .
  3. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J : Long-term success of sinus augmentation using various surgical approaches and grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13 : 52, 1998.
  4. Keller EE, Eckert SE, Tolman DE : Maxillary antral and nasal one-stage inlay composite bone graft : Preliminary report on 30 recipient sites. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52 : 438, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(94)90335-2
  5. Froum SJ, Tarnow DP, Wallace SS et al : Sinus floor elevation using anorganic bovine bone matrix (OsteoGraf/N) with and without autogenous bone: A clinical, histologic, radiographic, and histomorphometric analysis-Part 2 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 18 : 529, 1998.
  6. Tatum H Jr : Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 30 : 207, 1986.
  7. Summers RB : The osteotome technique, Part 3 Less invasive methods of elevating the sinus floor. Camp end Contin Educ Dent 15 : 698, 1994.
  8. Toffler M : Osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 19 : 266,2004:
  9. Kang IJ, Lee TK : Evaluation of early success rates in sinus lift procedures utilizing Hatch reamer system. Jounal of the Korean Academy of Implant Dentistry 26 : 33, 2007.
  10. Albreksson T, Zarb G, Worthington P et al : The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. lnt J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1 : 11, 1986.
  11. Buser D, Dula K, Belser U et al : Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration, surgical procedure in the maxilla. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 13 : 29, 1993.
  12. Bahat O, Fontanesi RV, Preston J : Reconstruction of the hard and soft tissue for optimal placement of osseous integrated implants. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent 13 : 255, 1993.
  13. Zitzmann NU, Scharer P, Marinello CP : Long-term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: A 5-year prospective study. lnt J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16 : 355, 2001.
  14. Jensen OT : Treatment planning for sinus grafts. In : Jensen OT, ed. The sinus bone graft. Carol Stream: Quintessence, 1999, p.49.
  15. Summers RB : A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compend Contin Ed Dent 15 : 152, 1994.
  16. Komarnyckj OG, London RM : Osteotome single-stage dental implant placement with and without sinus elevation: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14 : 799, 1998.
  17. Zitzmann NU, Scharer P : Sinus elevation procedures in the resorbed posterior maxilla. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 85 : 8, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90391-2
  18. Coatoam GW, Krieger JT : A four-year study examming the results of indirect sinus augmentation procedures. J Oral Implantol 23 : 117, 1997.
  19. Bruschi GB, Scipioni A, Calesini G et al : Localized management of sinus floor with simultaneous implant placement : A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13 : 219, 1998.
  20. Summers RB : Sinus Floor Elevation with Osteotomes. J Esthetic Dentistry 10 : 164, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00352.x
  21. Ten Bruggenkate CM, van den Bergh JPA : Maxillary sinus floor elevation: A valuable preprosthetic procedure. Peridontol 2000 17 : 176, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00133.x
  22. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L et al : Systemic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 24 : 565, 2004.
  23. Rosen PS, Summers R, Mellado JR at al : The bone-added osteotome sinus floor elevation technique: Multicenter ret-rospective report of consecutively treated patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14 : 853, 1999.
  24. Novaes AB, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT et al : Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17 : 377, 2002.
  25. London RM, Roberts FA, Baker DA et al : Histologic comparison of a thermal dual-etched implant surface to machined, TPS, and HA surfaces: Bone contact in vivo in rabbits. Int J Oral MaxiUofac Implants 17 : 369, 2002.
  26. Saker M, Ogale O : Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo subsequent to subsequent to sinus lift via closed technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63 : 1385, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.296
  27. Pemrrocha M, Perez H, Garcia A et al : Benign paroxismal positional vertigo as a complication of osteotome expansion of the maxillary alveolar ridge. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59 : 106, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.19307