Compare The Clinical Outcomes And Analyze The Prognostic Factors Of Different Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation Technique

Objective: To retrospectively compare the cumulative survival rate and marginal bone loss of implants inserted in the posterior maxilla in standard implant placement,transcrestal sinus floor elevation and lateral sinus floor elevation techniques and to evaluate the hypothetical prognostic factors that affect implant survival rate after maxillary sinus floor elevation.Methods: A total of 568 patients inserted implants in the posterior maxillary region from Jan 2006 to Dec 2014 in the Center of Oral Implantology,School and Hospital of Stomatology,China Medical University were concluded,with a follow-up period of 1-10 years.According to the different surgical treatments recorded in the cases,the samples were divided into standard implant placement group(SIP),transcrestal sinus floor elevation group(TSFE)and lateral sinus floor elevation group(LSFE).The life table method and Log-rank test were used to calculate and compare the cumulative survival rates of three treatments,and the one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the marginal bone loss of implants after 1-year functional loading of three treatments.Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox-regression analysis were performed to evaluate the prognostic factors of implant failure after maxillary sinus floor elevated in two different surgical treatments.Results: 34 out of the total of 1015 implants failed,with a total failure rate of 3.35% in the present study.Both the differences of the 10-year cumulative survival rate and the marginal bone loss after 1-year functional loading of SIP,TSFE and LSFE were of no significance.The prognostic factors of transcrestal sinus floor elevation were diabetes mellitus,surface of implants and gained bone volume(p<0.05);and the prognostic factors of lateral sinus floor elevation were diabetes mellitus,length of implant and residual bone height(p<0.05).Conclusion: Taking a properly and strictly preoperative assessment,the standard implant placement and two different types of maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques could achieve good clinical outcomes when inserted in the posterior maxillary.