A radiographic evaluation of graft height changes after maxillary sinus augmentation

PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were to quantitatively assess graft height changes after sinus lift procedures and to analyze the factors that influenced graft height changes, including the residual bone height before surgery, surgical approach, and tooth type. METHODS: A total of 39 maxillary posterior implants placed during a simultaneous sinus lift procedure were evaluated. Panoramic radiographs of all patients were taken immediately after implant installation and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. To analyze graft height changes over time, we measured the distance between the implant platform and the base of the grafted sinus floor at 3 locations. The radiographs were analyzed by a single examiner. RESULTS: Graft height tended to decrease over time, and a statistically significant difference was observed at 2 years compared to baseline (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in graft height change according to the surgical approach or tooth type. For residual bone height, a statistically significant difference in graft height change was found between those with 4–7 mm of residual bone height and those with ≥7 mm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Graft height after sinus lift procedures significantly decreased at 2 years compared to baseline after sinus augmentation. Further studies should be done with controlled variables, and prospective studies with 3-dimensional images are needed to clarify the factors that influence graft height changes.

Characteristics of the molar surface after removal of cervical enamel projections: comparison of three different rotating instruments

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare tooth surface characteristics in extracted human molars after cervical enamel projections (CEPs) were removed with the use of three rotating instruments. METHODS: We classified 60 extracted molars due to periodontal lesion with CEPs into grade I, II, or III, according to the Masters and Hoskins' criteria. Each group contained 20 specimens. Three rotating instruments were used to remove the CEPs: a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler, a periodontal bur, and a diamond bur. Tooth surface characteristics before and after removal of the projections were then evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We analyzed the characteristics of the tooth surfaces with respect to roughness and whether the enamel projections had been completely removed. RESULTS: In SEM images, surfaces treated with the diamond bur were smoothest, but this instrument caused considerable harm to tooth structures near the CEPs. The piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler group produced the roughest surface but caused less harm to the tooth structure near the furcation. In general, the surfaces treated with the periodontal bur were smoother than those treated with the ultrasonic scaler, and the periodontal bur did not invade adjacent tooth structures. CONCLUSIONS: For removal of grade II CEPs, the most effective instrument was the diamond bur. However, in removing grade III projections, the diamond bur can destroy both adjacent tooth structures and the periodontal apparatus. In such cases, careful use of the periodontal bur may be an appropriate substitute.