We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3     15. May 2003
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3  (15.05.2003)

Page 377-382

Sinus Augmentation Bone Grafts for the Provision of Dental Implants: Report of Clinical Outcome
McCarthy, Caroline / Patel, Rajesh R. / Wragg, Philip F. / Brook, Ian M.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to report the outcome of sinus augmentation surgery with autogenous bone grafting in routine dental implant practice.
Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven sinus augmentation procedures were undertaken on 18 consecutive patients (mean age 43.7 years). The mandibular symphysis was used as the donor site for 11 patients. The iliac crest was used as a donor site for 7 bilateral cases.
Results: Six patients had implants placed at the time of grafting; the other 13 had a mean bone graft consolidation period of 24.7 weeks (range 9 to 39 weeks) before implants were placed. One patient who had a repeat procedure had both immediate and delayed techniques. A total of 79 Brånemark System Mk II implants were placed in grafted bone (and 2 Mk IV implants were placed in a patient who had to have a repeat procedure) and proceeded to occlusal loading. After a mean follow-up period of 162 weeks (range 76 to 288 weeks), 16 implants failed to integrate in grafted bone, representing an 80.25% survival rate. Fourteen patients proceeded to the planned prosthesis, 3 patients had a compromised treatment plan, and 1 patient was restored conventionally. This represents 94% of patients who were rehabilitated. Discussion and
Conclusion: The sinus augmentation procedure using autogenous bone grafting can increase bone volume to allow implant placement where there is insufficient bone. The survival of implants in the grafted bone, as measured by integration and successful loading, was reduced compared to implants placed in normal maxillary bone. Infection during the healing of the grafted site reduces the success of subsequent implant osseointegration.