Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Elevation, Perforation Rate, and Time Spent for the Crestal Sinus Elevation Intervened by Piezosurgery, CAS-Kit, and Osteotome in a Novel Goat Model

  • Comparative Study
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the differences among Piezosurgery, CAS-kit, and Osteotome regarding safe elevation, perforation rate, and time spent and to observe and analyze different sinus lifting efficacy of the three methods.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-one fresh goat heads (42 sinuses) were investigated. CBCT images confirmed the feasibility of the goat model. The maxillary sinus was successively lifted to 5, 7, and 9 mm by Piezosurgery, CAS-kit, and Osteotome until the sinus membrane was perforated or lifted to 9 mm. In the end, final elevation, sinus perforation, and time spent were recorded.

Results

Piezosurgery and CAS-kit lifted sinuses to relatively higher heights than did Osteotome (P = 0.000). Perforation rates (14.29, 21.43%) of the Piezosurgery and CAS-kit were far lower than that of the Osteotome (85.71%). In the Osteotome group, the time of lifting to 9 mm was significantly shorter than that of Piezosurgery and CAS-kit (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in time spent between the latter two (P = 0.115).

Conclusions

The lifting height of the Osteotome was limited, but it took the shortest time for sinus lifting. Piezosurgery and CAS-kit had higher lifting heights and lower perforation rates compared with Osteotome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Padhye NM, Bhatavadekar NB (2020) Quantitative assessment of the edentulous posterior maxilla for implant therapy: a retrospective cone beam computed tomographic study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 19(1):125–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01236-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Summers RB (1994) A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium 15(2):152–154

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elian S, Barakat K (2018) Crestal endoscopic approach for evaluating sinus membrane elevation technique. Int J Implant Dent 4(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0126-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sotirakis EG, Gonshor A (2005) Elevation of the maxillary sinus floor with hydraulic pressure. J Oral Implantol 31(4):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[197:EOTMSF]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vercellotti T, De Paoli S, Nevins M (2001) The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 21(6):561–567

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Troedhan AC, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Jank S (2010) Hydrodynamic ultrasonic sinus floor elevation-an experimental study in sheep. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(5):1125–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan J, Hu P, Li Y et al (2017) Goat model for direct visualizing the effectiveness of detaching sinus mucosa in real time during crestalmaxillary sinus floor elevation. J Oral Implantol 43(4):247–253. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. López-Niño J, García-Caballero L, González-Mosquera A, Seoane-Romero J, Varela-Centelles P, Seoane J (2012) Lamb ex vivo model for training in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery: a comparative study with human standards. J Periodontol 83(3):354–361. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Călin C, Petre A, Drafta S (2014) Osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(3):558–576. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Catros S, Montaudon M, Bou C, Da Costa NR, Fricain JC, Ella B (2015) Comparison of conventional transcrestal sinus lift and ultrasound-enhanced transcrestalhydrodynamic cavitational sinus lift for the filling of subantral space: a human cadaver study. J Oral Implantol 41(6):657–661. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gargallo-Albiol J, Tattan M, Sinjab KH, Chan HL, Wang HL (2019) Schneiderian membrane perforation via transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a randomized ex vivo study with endoscopic validation. Clin Oral Implants Res 30(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Malzoni CMA, Nicoli LG, Pinto GDCDS et al (2020) The effectiveness of L-PRF in the treatment of Schneiderian membrane large perforations: long-term follow-up of a case series. J Oral Implantol 47(1):31–35. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yassin Alsabbagh A, Alsabbagh MM, Darjazini Nahas B, Rajih S (2017) Comparison of three different methods of internal sinus lifting for elevation heights of 7 mm: an ex vivo study. Int J Implant Dent 3(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0103-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bensaha T (2011) Evaluation of the capability of a new water lift system to reduce the risk of Schneiderian membrane perforation during sinus elevation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(8):815–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.04.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Li J, Lee K, Chen H, Ou G (2013) Piezoelectric surgery in maxillary sinus floor elevation with hydraulic pressure for xenograft and simultaneous implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 110(5):344–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirpalani T, Dym H (2020) Role of piezo surgery and lasers in the oral surgery office. Dent Clin North Am 64(2):351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2019.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jank S, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Bek VE, Troedhan A (2011) Rupture length of the sinus membrane after 1.2 mm puncture and surgical sinus elevation: an experimental animal cadaver study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112(5):568–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.11.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dong Z, Yao C, Zhang Y, Chen G, Yuan Q, Xu J (2016) Hydrodynamics and mass transfer of oscillating gas-liquid flow in ultrasonic microreactors. AIChE J 62(4):1294–1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Jank S (2014) Schneiderian membrane detachment using transcrestalhydrodynamic ultrasonic cavitational sinus lift: a human cadaver head study and histologic analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(8):1503.e1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.02.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zheng X, Teng M, Zhou F, Ye J, Li G, Mo A (2016) Influence of maxillary sinus width on transcrestal sinus augmentation outcomes: radiographic evaluation based on cone beam CT. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18(2):292–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Srouji S, Kizhner T, Ben David D, Riminucci M, Bianco P, Livne E (2009) The Schneiderian membrane contains osteoprogenitor cells: in vivo and in vitro study. Calcif Tissue Int 84(2):138–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-008-9202-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Garrido-Serrano R, Azcárate-Velázquez F, Núñez-Arcos P (2015) Anatomic analysis of the maxillary sinus: preliminary morphologic comparison of animal models (pig, lamb, and human). J Oral Implantol 41(4):495–499. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. de Oliveira HF, Bollela VR, Anselmo-Lima WT, Costa CAPO, Nakanishi M (2017) A feasible, low-cost, reproducible lamb’s head model for endoscopic sinus surgery training. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0180273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study had received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the key R&D projects of Shanxi Province. National Natural Science Foundation of China, 82003146, Jue Wang, Shanxi Provincial Key Research and Development Project, 201903D321090, Jue Wang.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanxi Medical University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Taiyuan, 030001, China

    Hongping Wu, Chengyu Wang, Xin Yang, Qiannan Gong, Weizhe Su, Aoran Cheng & Yawei Fan

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China

    Jue Wang

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030001, China

    Yawei Fan

Authors
  1. Hongping Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chengyu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiannan Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Weizhe Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aoran Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yawei Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H Wu, Prof. F Yawei and J Wang, MD, participated in experiment design. H Wu and Prof. F Yawei were involved in experimental operation. H Wu was involved in data analysis, result interpretation, article drafting and revision. Prof. F Yawei gave guidance and was involved in key revision and approval of the paper. J Wang, MD, participated in article modification and responsible for fund guarantee. C Wang, X Yang, Q Gong, W Su, and A Cheng were involved in goat model making and participated in the experiment, experimental photography, and data recording.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yawei Fan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, H., Wang, J., Wang, C. et al. A Comparison of Elevation, Perforation Rate, and Time Spent for the Crestal Sinus Elevation Intervened by Piezosurgery, CAS-Kit, and Osteotome in a Novel Goat Model. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 21, 1191–1198 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-022-01793-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-022-01793-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation