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 28 (2013), No. 5     24. Oct. 2013
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28 (2013), No. 5  (24.10.2013)

Page 1201-1206, doi:10.11607/jomi.2708, PubMed:24066309

Comparison of a Novel Trephine Drill with Conventional Rotary Instruments for Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation
Kazancioglu, Hakki Oguz / Tek, Mustafa / Ezirganli, Seref / Mihmanli, Ahmet
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare a newly designed trephine drill (SLA KIT, Neobiotech) with conventional rotary instruments for maxillary sinus floor elevation based on operative time, postoperative pain, and perforation rates.
Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients were treated with a bilateral sinus floor elevation procedure with rotary trephine and conventional instruments. One side was treated with conventional rotary instruments, while the contralateral side was treated with rotary trephine instruments, with a 2-week gap between surgeries. Operative time was measured with a chronometer in seconds as the time from soft tissue incision to primary closure of the incision with the last suture. Pain was scored on a 10-point visual analog scale at 24 hours after surgery. The presence of tears and perforations was determined by direct visualization and the Valsalva maneuver.
Results: Twenty-five patients were included in the study. Operative time was shorter when the trephine drill was used (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than with conventional rotary instruments (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes). Sinus membrane perforation was observed in eight patients when conventional rotary instruments were used, while the trephine drill resulted in two sinus perforations. Mean pain scores were 2.01 ± 0.11 after using the trephine drill and 2.25 ± 0.76 when conventional rotary instruments were used. No significant difference was found in postoperative pain scores.
Conclusion: The trephine drill technique may result in decreased perforation rates and operative time.