Duygu GÖLLER BULUT, Gülbahar USTAOĞLU, Kerem Çağlar GÜMÜŞ

Possible risk factors of sinus membrane perforationduring sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

Aim: To investigate risk factors causing sinus membrane perforation during sinus floor elevation (SFE) performed with lateral window technique and to evaluate the sinus membrane health after SFE via Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 33 patients with sinus membrane perforation during SFE and 33 patients without perforation during SFE as a control and a total of 80 CBCTs were evaluated. Patient-related factors (age, sex, smoking) and maxillary sinusrelated factors (preoperative membrane thickness, residual bone thickness, postoperative membrane thickness, and postoperative total bone thickness, type of sinus membrane morphology, and presence of septa) were assessed. Results: Preoperative sinus membrane thickness of the perforated group (4.38 ± 6.02 mm) was significantly higher than the nonperforated group (1.74 ± 2.81 mm) (p = 0.02). No significant difference was found between preoperative and postoperative membrane thicknesses of the non-perforated and perforated group (p = 0.135 and p = 0.106, respectively). The perforation rate was highest (83.3%) in the group of mucosal thickness ≥4 mm. Membrane perforation was observed in 100% of circumferential and complete type sinus membrane morphology, 80% of polyp type morphology, and 85.7% in irregular type morphology. A relationship was found between the presence of septa and membrane perforation (p = 0.01).Conclusion: The study results show that the presence of septa, age of >55 years, and a sinus membrane thickness of >4 mm are associated with an increased risk of sinus membrane perforation. Perforation did not affect postoperative sinus membrane thickness.

PDF

___

1. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:328-43.
2. Wang HL, Katranji A. ABC sinus augmentation classification. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:383-9.
3. Ardekian L, Oved-Peleg E, Mactei EE, et al. The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:277-82.
4. Becker ST, Terheyden H, Steinriede A, et al. Prospective observation of 41 perforations of the Schneiderian membrane during sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1285-9.
5. Lin YH, Yang YC, Wen SC, et al. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during lateral window sinus augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:612-7.
6. Katranji A, Fotek P, Wang HL. Sinus augmentation complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 2008;17:339-49.
7. Shiffler K, Lee D, Aghaloo T, et al. Sinus membrane perforations and the incidence of complications: a retrospective study from a residency program. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;120:10-4.
8. van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJ, et al. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:256-65.
9. Bayrak S, Ustaoglu G, Demiralp KO, et al. Evaluation of the Characteristics and Association Between Schneiderian Membrane Thickness and Nasal Septum Deviation. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:683-7.
10. Hernandez-Alfaro F, Torradeflot MM, Marti C. Prevalence and management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus-lift procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:91-8.
11. Proussaefs P, Lozada J, Kim J. Effects of sealing the perforated sinus membrane with a resorbable collagen membrane: a pilot study in humans. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:235-41.
12. Shlomi B, Horowitz I, Kahn A, et al. The effect of sinus membrane perforation and repair with Lambone on the outcome of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a radiographic assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:559-62.
13. Cordioli G, Mazzocco C, Schepers E, et al. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using bioactive glass granules and autogenous bone with simultaneous implant placement. Clinical and histological findings. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:270-8.
14. Pommer B, Dvorak G, Jesch P, et al. Effect of maxillary sinus floor augmentation on sinus membrane thickness in computed tomography. J Periodontol 2012;83:551-6.
15. Carmeli G, Artzi Z, Kozlovsky A, et al. Antral computerized tomography pre-operative evaluation: relationship between mucosal thickening and maxillary sinus function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:78-82.
16. Park WB, Han JY, Kang P, et al. The clinical and radiographic outcomes of Schneiderian membrane perforation without repair in sinus elevation surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:931-7.
17. Lum AG, Ogata Y, Pagni SE, et al. Association Between Sinus Membrane Thickness and Membrane Perforation in Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation: A Retrospective Study. J Periodontol 2017;88:543-9.
18. Schneider AC, Bragger U, Sendi P, et al. Characteristics and dimensions of the sinus membrane in patients referred for single-implant treatment in the posterior maxilla: a cone beam computed tomographic analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:587-96.
19. Cakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Durna D. Relationship among Schneiderian membrane, Underwood's septa, and the maxillary sinus inferior border. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:83-7.
20. von Arx T, Fodich I, Bornstein MM, et al. Perforation of the sinus membrane during sinus floor elevation: a retrospective study of frequency and possible risk factors.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:718- 26.
21. Tukel HC, Tatli U. Risk factors and clinical outcomes of sinus membrane perforation during lateral window sinus lifting: analysis of 120 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:1189-94.
22. Gourgiotis S, Aloizos S, Aravosita P, et al. The effects of tobacco smoking on the incidence and risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications in adults. Surgeon 2011;9:225-32.
23. Schwarz L, Schiebel V, Hof M, et al. Risk Factors of Membrane Perforation and Postoperative Complications in Sinus Floor Elevation Surgery: Review of 407 Augmentation Procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:1275-82.
24. Krennmair G, Ulm C, Lugmayr H. Maxillary sinus septa: incidence, morphology and clinical implications. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1997;25:261-5.
25. Ella B, Noble Rda C, Lauverjat Y, et al. Septa within the sinus: effect on elevation of the sinus floor. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:464-7.
26. Anduze-Acher G, Brochery B, Felizardo R, et al. Change in sinus membrane dimension following sinus floor elevation: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1123-9.
27. Wen SC, Lin YH, Yang YC, et al. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1158-64.
28. Gurler G, Delilbasi C. Relationship between preoperative cone beam computed tomography and intraoperative findings in sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1244-8.
29. Rapani M, Rapani C, Ricci L. Schneider membrane thickness classification evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and its importance in the predictability of perforation. Retrospective analysis of 200 patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;54:1106- 10.
30. Yilmaz HG, Tozum TF. Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height, and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? J Periodontol 2012;83:420-5.