[Retrospective study on transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implantation of short implants].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the changes in bone height of the maxillary sinus floor at different sinus ridge heights after transcrestal sinus floor elevation (tSFE) with the simultaneous implantation of short implants. METHODS: A total of 74 Bicon short implants were implanted into 37 patients during the same period of maxillary sinus elevation. The residual bone height (RBH)<4 mm group has 43 sites, and the RBH≥4 mm group has 31 sites. After 5 years of follow-up observation, the implant survival rate and the change in bone height achieved in the maxillary sinus over time were measured and analyzed via clinical examination and X-ray imaging. RESULTS: In the 74 implantation sites, the elevation height of the sinus floor was (6.64±1.32) mm and the bone height of the sinus floor was (3.35±1.29) mm 5 years after loading. No statistical difference was observed in the bone resorption of the implant neck between the RBH<4 mm and RBH≥4 mm groups. Meanwhile, a statistical difference was noted in the bone height obtained in the maxillary sinus between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When RBH in the maxillary posterior tooth area was <4 mm, the simultaneous implantation of Bicon short implants with tSFE can achieve a high implant survival rate and bone gain in the maxillary sinus, but does not increase the absorption of the alveolar ridge bone.

Unconventional implant strategy for patients with a limited interocclusal space in the posterior region: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Implant prostheses require sufficient interocclusal space. In cases of limited interocclusal space, reducing or extracting over-erupted opposing teeth, orthodontic intrusion, or surgical reconstruction of the edentulous space are commonly used to restore the interocclusal space. However, there are disadvantages to these approaches. CASE PRESENTATION: The present case report describes a patient with a limited interocclusal space managed using an unconventional implant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The patient presented satisfactory outcomes without any signs of implant failure, suggesting that the unconventional implant treatment strategy is a useful option for patients with a limited interocclusal space in the posterior region. This unconventional implant surgery provides a minimally invasive treatment alternative.