Table 2 Characteristics of the included investigations
Table 2 Characteristics of the included investigations
author: Gian Maria Ragucci,Basel Elnayef,Fernando Surez-Lpez del Amo,Hom-Lay Wang,Federico Hernndez-Alfaro,Jordi Gargallo-Albiol | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
| Author (year) | Study design | Follow-up (months) | N of patients | N of implants | Smokers | Length and diameter (mm) | Implant system |
| Shihab 2017 | Retrospective | 60 | 35 | 70 | NA | 5–12 × 3.0–5.7 | IDI FMD Nucleoss |
| Ghanem 2014 | Retrospective | 72 | 10 | 10 | NA | NA | NA |
| Nooh 2013 | Prospective | 12 | 56 | 63 | 0 | 4 × 8 4.3 × 10 5 × 8 5 × 10 | Nobel Biocare |
| Kim 2013 | Retrospective | 17.9 | 39 | 87 | NA | 8-9-10-11,5 × 4–5 | NA |
| Abi Najm 2013 | Retrospective | 118 | 70 | 83 | 7 | NA | Strauman |
| Tabrizi 2012 | Retrospective | 12 | 13 | 18 | NA | NA | Astra tech Zimmer DIO |
| Jung 2007 | Retrospective | 10 | 9 | 23 | NA | NA | Astra tech Osstem implant |
| Branemark 1984 | Retrospective | 120 | 101 | 139 | NA | NA | Branemark system |
| 1–2 phase | Graft material | CBH (mm) | Penetration (mm) | Evaluation | ncm | Membrane perforation (%) | Clinic complications (Pat level) |
| 2 | No | ≤ 4 | > 4 | rx(opg)-clinic | > 30 | 100 | 2.1% epistaxis |
| 2 | No | NA | ≤ 4 | rx(opg-MSCT)-clinic | NA | 100 | 0% |
| 2 | No | 5–8 | < 4 | rx(opg)-clinic | > 25 | 100 | 12.5% epistaxis 1.78% sinusitis |
| 2 | No | 4.2–9.3 | 1–5 | rx (opg)-clinic | 25 | 100 | 7.7% epistaxis |
| 1 | No | 5–8 | < 4 | rx (periapical-opg)-clinic | NA | 100 | 0% |
| NA | No | NA | < 4 | rx (periapical-CT)-clinic | NA | NA | 0% |
| 2 | No | NA | > 4 | rx(CT)-clinic.questionare | NA | NA | 0% |
| 2 | No | NA | NA | rx-clinic | NA | NA | NA |
| Rx complications | Type of prosthesis | Implant failure before loading | Implant failure after loading | Total implant failure | Survival rate (%) | Bone loss (mm) | |
| 0% | NA | 1 | 1 | 2 | 97% | 0 | |
| 0% | 49 SC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | NA | |
| NA | 49 Unilateral SC 7 Bilateral SC | 1 | 0 | 1 | 98% | NA | |
| NA | 31 SC 56 splinted for FA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | + 0.05 | |
| 0% | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | NA | |
| 16% (patients) thickening membrane | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 0 | |
| 60% (implants) thickening membrane | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100%% | NA | |
| NA | NA | NA | NA | 30% | 70% | NA |
Serial posts:
- Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity
- Introduction ; Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity
- Materials & methods : Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity (1)
- Materials & methods : Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity (2)
- Results : Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity (1)
- Results : Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity (2)
- Figure 1. Graphic representation of implants intruding sinus perforating
- Discussion : Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity (2)
- Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart of the screening process
- Figure 3. Graphic representation of group 1 ≤ 4 mm penetration and group 2 > 4 mm penetrations
- Figure 4. Statistical analysis for different variables
- Table 1 Clinical and radiographic complications reported in the studies
- Table 2 Characteristics of the included investigations
- Table 3 Articles excluded and reasons for exclusion