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 15 (2000), No. 5     15. Oct. 2000
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15 (2000), No. 5  (15.10.2000)

Page 625-632

A Prospective Randomized Study of 1- and 2-Stage Sinus Inlay Bone Grafts: 1-Year Follow-up
Wannfors, Karin / Johansson, Björn / Hallman, Mats / Strandkvist, Tomas
The purpose of the present study was to compare the success of and surgical differences between 1- and 2-stage sinus inlay bone grafts and implants after 1 year in function. The individual risk for implant failure in grafted areas among 1-stage patients was about twice the risk in 2-stage patients (odds ratio 2.3, CI 0.6; 8.5). The risk for implant failure in non-grafted areas was significantly lower (P < .05) than in grafted areas, regardless of the technique used. Forty edentulous patients, selected according to strict inclusion criteria from consecutive referrals, were allocated to one or other of the 2 sinus-inlay procedures. Twenty patients received bone blocks fixed by implants to the residual alveolar crest in a 1-stage procedure (group 1). In another 20 patients, particulated bone was condensed against the antral floor and left to heal for 6 months before implants were placed (group 2). An almost equal number of implants was placed in the patients of each group, 76 in the 1-stage procedure and 74 in the 2-stage procedure. Additionally, 72 and 66 implants were placed in the anterior non-grafted regions of group 1 and group 2 patients, respectively. After 1 year in function, a total of 20 implants failed in 1-stage patients, versus 11 in 2-stage patients. Sixteen and 8 implants, respectively, of these were placed in grafted bone. All but one 1-stage patient received the planned fixed prosthetic restorations, but 1 restoration was redesigned after the first year in function because of a functionally unacceptable prosthetic design. At the 1-year follow-up, one 2-stage patient lost her prosthesis as the result of multiple implant failures. Bruxism and postoperative infections were the only parameters that could be related to implant failure, however, depending on the statistical method used.

Keywords: bone transplantation, dental implants, endosseous dental implantation, maxillary sinus