Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures.

Hernández-Alfaro F., Torradeflot MM., Marti C.

Prospective Study with a reported sample of 338 on Face & Skin, published in Clin Oral Implants Res (2007) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
Clin Oral Implants Res (2007)
Country
Denmark
Reported sample size
338
Source database
PubMed
PMID
17961185
DOI
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01372.x

Abstract (original English)

This clinical study was undertaken to evaluate the prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and to set a protocol to repair sinus membrane perforations intraoperatively using a variety of techniques and materials. From January 2000 to May 2005, 338 patients were studied, on whom 474 sinus floor augmentation procedures were performed, and a total of 1166 dental implants were simultaneously placed. A total of 104 perforations of the sinus membrane were observed (19 were bilateral). In group number 1, sinus membrane perforations of <5 mm were observed in 56 sinus augmentation procedures (53.85%), 44 were treated using a resorbable collagen membrane and 12 were sutured with a resorbable material. In group number 2, 28 sinus membranes had a perforation size between 5 and 10 mm (26.92%) and were treated using lamellar bone combined with a resorbable membrane. Group number 3 consisted of 20 sinus membrane perforations>10 mm (19.23%), 10 were covered with lamellar bone combined with a buccal fat pad flap, six were treated with a mandibular block graft and four perforations were treated with only a lamellar bone sheet. Two-hundred and seventy-eight implants were placed under repaired membrane perforations and 247 implants survived. Interestingly enough, all the 25 implants that failed to integrate were placed under perforated and reconstructed membranes during t

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdultAgedBone SubstitutesBone TransplantationCollagenDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Restoration FailureFacial InjuriesFemale

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research