Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of available height, location, and patency of the ostium for sinus augmentation from an implant treatment planning perspective

  • Vaddi, Anusha (Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostic Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Villagran, Sofia (Division of General Dentistry, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Muttanahally, Kavya Shankar (Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostic Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Tadinada, Aditya (Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostic Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine)
  • Received : 2020.08.17
  • Accepted : 2021.03.13
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the amount of height available for a maxillary sinus augmentation procedure without blocking the ostium and jeopardizing the drainage of the ostiomeatal complex using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Materials and Methods: A total of 200 sinonasal complexes comprising 100 dentate and 100 edentulous scans were retrospectively assessed using CBCT. Invivo 5.0, a CBCT reconstruction program, was used for image evaluation. The coronal section demonstrating the ostiomeatal complex was selected as a reference view to perform measurements of the sinus. The measurements were done by 2 evaluators in separate sessions. Comparative analyses of measurements were performed between dentate and edentulous patients and between male and female patients. Results: The safe height to which the sinus can be elevated without compromising the integrity of the ostiomeatal complex was calculated for each sinus. In the presence of significant mucosal thickening, the height available for augmentation was calculated by subtracting the height of mucosal thickening from the sinus floor to the location of the ostium. In this study, the available height was approximately 27.05 mm for dentate and 23.40 mm for edentulous patients. The inter-operator reliability was excellent for all the parameters evaluated. Conclusion: This retrospective study with a limited number of patients from a single university-based site shows that CBCT is valuable in evaluating the location and patency of the ostium for planning sinus augmentation procedures for dental implant placement.

Keywords

References

  1. Sharan A, Madjar D. Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 48-56.
  2. Chanavaz M. Maxillary sinus: anatomy, physiology, surgery, and bone grafting related to implantology - eleven years of surgical experience (1979-1990). J Oral Implantol 1990; 16: 199-209.
  3. Whyte A, Boeddinghaus R. The maxillary sinus: physiology, development and imaging anatomy. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20190205. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190205
  4. Levi I, Halperin-Sternfeld M, Horwitz J, Zigdon-Giladi H, Machtei EE. Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus following tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla with and without socket preservation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19: 952-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12521
  5. Irinakis T. Rationale for socket preservation after extraction of a single-rooted tooth when planning for future implant placement. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 917-22.
  6. Byrne G. Socket preservation of implant sites: a critical summary of Ten Heggeler JMAG, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review (published online ahead of print Nov. 22, 2010). Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(8):779-788. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 1139-40.
  7. Perelman-Karmon M, Kozlovsky A, Liloy R, Artzi Z. Socket site preservation using bovine bone mineral with and without a bioresorbable collagen membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012; 32: 459-65.
  8. Kotsakis GA, Salama M, Chrepa V, Hinrichs JE, Gaillard P. A randomized, blinded, controlled clinical study of particulate anorganic bovine bone mineral and calcium phosphosilicate putty bone substitutes for socket preservation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 141-51. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3230
  9. Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G. Alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019; 10: e2.
  10. Tadinada A, Jalali E, Al-Salman W, Jambhekar S, Katechia B, Almas K. Prevalence of bony septa, antral pathology, and dimensions of the maxillary sinus from a sinus augmentation perspective: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 109-15. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.109
  11. Danesh-Sani SA, Loomer PM, Wallace SS. A comprehensive clinical review of maxillary sinus floor elevation: anatomy, techniques, biomaterials and complications. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: 724-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.05.008
  12. Bell GW, Joshi BB, Macleod RI. Maxillary sinus disease: diagnosis and treatment. Br Dent J 2011; 210: 113-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.47
  13. Brook I. Sinusitis. Periodontol 2000 2009; 49: 126-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00293.x
  14. Kasabah S, Krug J, Simunek A, Lecaro MC. Can we predict maxillary sinus mucosa perforation? Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2003; 46: 19-23. https://doi.org/10.14712/18059694.2019.4
  15. Carmeli G, Artzi Z, Kozlovsky A, Segev Y, Landsberg R. Antral computerized tomography pre-operative evaluation: relationship between mucosal thickening and maxillary sinus function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01986.x
  16. Timmenga NM, Raghoebar GM, Liem RSB, Van Weissenbruch R, Manson WL, Vissink A. Effects of maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery on maxillary sinus physiology. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111: 189-97. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00012.x
  17. Felisati G, Saibene AM, Lenzi R, Pipolo C. Late recovery from foreign body sinusitis after maxillary sinus floor augmentation. BMJ Case Rep 2012; 2012: bcr2012007434.
  18. Nicolielo LF, Van Dessel J, Jacobs R, Martens W, Lambrichts I, Rubira-Bullen IR. Presurgical CBCT assessment of maxillary neurovascularization in relation to maxillary sinus augmentation procedures and posterior implant placement. Surg Radiol Anat 2014; 36: 915-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-014-1309-3
  19. Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Jacobs R. Preoperative implant planning considering alveolar bone grafting needs and complication prediction using panoramic versus CBCT images. Imaging Sci Dent 2014; 44: 213-20. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.213
  20. Laurino FA, Choi IG, Kim JH, Gialain IO, Ferraco R, Haetinger RG, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for maxillary sinus graft assessment. Imaging Sci Dent 2020; 50: 93-8. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.2.93
  21. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5
  22. Miller AJ, Amedee RG. Functional anatomy of the paranasal sinuses. J La State Med Soc 1997; 149: 85-90.
  23. Butaric LN, Wadle M, Gascon J, Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition and Genetics Study. Anatomical variation in maxillary sinus ostium positioning: implications for nasal-sinus disease. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2019; 302: 917-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24039
  24. El-Anwar MW, Raafat A, Almolla RM, Alsowey AM, Elzayat S. Maxillary sinus ostium assessment: a CT study. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2018; 49: 1009-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2018.07.009
  25. Shanbhag S, Karnik P, Shirke P, Shanbhag V. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of sinus membrane thickness, ostium patency, and residual ridge heights in the posterior maxilla: implications for sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 755-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12168
  26. Peleg M, Chaushu G, Mazor Z, Ardekian L, Bakoon M. Radiological findings of the post-sinus lift maxillary sinus: a computerized tomography follow-up. J Periodontol 1999; 70: 1564-73. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1999.70.12.1564
  27. Sahlstrand-Johnson P, Jannert M, Strombeck A, Abul-Kasim K. Computed tomography measurements of different dimensions of maxillary and frontal sinuses. BMC Med Imaging 2011; 11: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-11-8
  28. Souza AD, Rajagopal KV, Ankolekar VH, Souza AD, Kotian SR. Anatomy of maxillary sinus and its ostium: a radiological study using computed tomography. Chrismed J Health Res 2016; 3: 37-40. https://doi.org/10.4103/2348-3334.172397
  29. Fernandes CL. Forensic ethnic identification of crania: the role of the maxillary sinus - a new approach. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2004; 25: 302-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.paf.0000146379.85804.da
  30. Uthman AT, Al-Rawi NH, Al-Naaimi AS, Al-Timimi JF. Evaluation of maxillary sinus dimensions in gender determination using helical CT scanning. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56: 403-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01642.x
  31. Teke HY, Duran S, Canturk N, Canturk G. Determination of gender by measuring the size of the maxillary sinuses in computerized tomography scans. Surg Radiol Anat 2007; 29: 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-006-0157-1
  32. Som PM. CT of the paranasal sinuses. Neuroradiology 1985; 27: 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00344487
  33. Carmeli G, Artzi Z, Kozlovsky A, Segev Y, Landsberg R. Antral computerized tomography pre-operative evaluation: relationship between mucosal thickening and maxillary sinus function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01986.x
  34. Maska B, Lin GH, Othman A, Behdin S, Travan S, Benavides E, et.al. Dental implants and grafting success remain high despite large variations in maxillary sinus mucosal thickening. Int J Implant Dent 2017; 3: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0064-8
  35. Janner SF, Caversaccio MD, Dubach P, Sendi P, Buser D, Bornstein MM. Characteristics and dimensions of the Schneiderian membrane: a radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography in patients referred for dental implant surgery in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1446-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02140.x
  36. Guo ZZ, Liu Y, Qin L, Song YL, Xie C, Li DH. Longitudinal response of membrane thickness and ostium patency following sinus floor elevation: a prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 724-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12655
  37. Tadinada A, Fung K, Thacker S, Mahdian M, Jadhav A, Schincaglia GP. Radiographic evaluation of the maxillary sinus prior to dental implant therapy: a comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional radiographic imaging. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 169-74. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.3.169
  38. Rege IC, Sousa TO, Leles CR, Mendonca EF. Occurrence of maxillary sinus abnormalities detected by cone beam CT in asymptomatic patients. BMC Oral Health 2012; 12: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-12-30