PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study

BACKGROUNDSinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University 2021-06, Vol.30 (6), p.633-640
Hauptverfasser: Dominiak, Sebastian, Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa, Popecki, Paweł, Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 640
container_issue 6
container_start_page 633
container_title Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University
container_volume 30
creator Dominiak, Sebastian
Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa
Popecki, Paweł
Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł
description BACKGROUNDSinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been recognized to be as good as xenografts and alloplastic materials. However, initial results have been promising. OBJECTIVESTo conduct a clinical and radiological comparison of implantation with a simultaneous sinus lift using xenograft or PRF clots. MATERIAL AND METHODSThirty sinus lifts with simultaneous implantation were conducted using a lateral window approach and the tent pole technique, with xenograft (group 1 (G1)) or PRF (group 2 (G2)) as a filling material. To be included in the study, patients must have had an alveolar ridge height of 4-5 mm, no signs of inflammatory processes, good oral hygiene, and no other grafting procedures performed in region of implant insertion. In each case, the measurements taken were probing pocket depth (PPD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth/width (RD/RW), and, on panoramic X-rays, marginal bone loss (MBL), grafted sinus high (GSH), and bone gain (BG). Preand post-operative treatment was applied to reduce the chance of infection. RESULTSDuring the study, 30 implants (hydroxyapatite-coated implants manufactured by SGS - 10 mm in length and 4.2 mm in diameter) were placed. The survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no implant mobility, pain, paresthesia, or inflammatory processes in the direct vicinity of the implants observed, except in 1 patient. After 36 months of follow-up, the radiological assessments for G1 were: GSH 4.5 mm, MBL 0.46 mm and BG 4.53 mm; and for G2: 3.4 mm, 0.6 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. Results of the clinical measurements were for G1: HKT after 36 months (HKT36) 2.46 mm, CAL 0.47 mm and PPD 2 mm; and for G2: HKT36 3.13 mm, CAL 0.6 mm and PPD 2.07 mm. CONCLUSIONSAfter 3 years of follow-up, the results of sinus lifting solely using PRF with simultaneous implantation were promising, especially in terms of soft tissue management. Therefore, PRF can be regarded as an alternative to previously used materials.
doi_str_mv 10.17219/acem/134202
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528184512</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2528184512</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p188t-49fec25f4126f46e4e4c99789b220c38af7da422bfc25d0a60bdfa9ffa48cef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjrFOwzAQhj2ARFW68QAeWULti5PYbFVFaaVKINS9cpxzCErsEDsVvD1G8A_3S58-3R0hd5w98Aq4WmuDw5rnAhhckQWXSmUFVOUNWYXwwVKEAsXEgkyvbzt6wSnMgX6h8-2kbaSdo6FzCem5HdBFHTvvfqnRAam3dL_JjE_UtbQbxl67SNNMR5P8SDc0L7PBu_hOJ4yTDyOa2F2Qhjg337fk2uo-4Oq_l-S0ezpt99nx5fmw3RyzkUsZM6EsGiis4FBaUaJAYZSqpKoBmMmltlWjBUBtk9UwXbK6sVpZq4U0aPMluf9bO07-c8YQz0MXDPbpWfRzOEMBkktRcMh_AJhjXrE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2528184512</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Dominiak, Sebastian ; Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa ; Popecki, Paweł ; Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</creator><creatorcontrib>Dominiak, Sebastian ; Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa ; Popecki, Paweł ; Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUNDSinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been recognized to be as good as xenografts and alloplastic materials. However, initial results have been promising. OBJECTIVESTo conduct a clinical and radiological comparison of implantation with a simultaneous sinus lift using xenograft or PRF clots. MATERIAL AND METHODSThirty sinus lifts with simultaneous implantation were conducted using a lateral window approach and the tent pole technique, with xenograft (group 1 (G1)) or PRF (group 2 (G2)) as a filling material. To be included in the study, patients must have had an alveolar ridge height of 4-5 mm, no signs of inflammatory processes, good oral hygiene, and no other grafting procedures performed in region of implant insertion. In each case, the measurements taken were probing pocket depth (PPD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth/width (RD/RW), and, on panoramic X-rays, marginal bone loss (MBL), grafted sinus high (GSH), and bone gain (BG). Preand post-operative treatment was applied to reduce the chance of infection. RESULTSDuring the study, 30 implants (hydroxyapatite-coated implants manufactured by SGS - 10 mm in length and 4.2 mm in diameter) were placed. The survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no implant mobility, pain, paresthesia, or inflammatory processes in the direct vicinity of the implants observed, except in 1 patient. After 36 months of follow-up, the radiological assessments for G1 were: GSH 4.5 mm, MBL 0.46 mm and BG 4.53 mm; and for G2: 3.4 mm, 0.6 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. Results of the clinical measurements were for G1: HKT after 36 months (HKT36) 2.46 mm, CAL 0.47 mm and PPD 2 mm; and for G2: HKT36 3.13 mm, CAL 0.6 mm and PPD 2.07 mm. CONCLUSIONSAfter 3 years of follow-up, the results of sinus lifting solely using PRF with simultaneous implantation were promising, especially in terms of soft tissue management. Therefore, PRF can be regarded as an alternative to previously used materials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1899-5276</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.17219/acem/134202</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University, 2021-06, Vol.30 (6), p.633-640</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dominiak, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popecki, Paweł</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</creatorcontrib><title>PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study</title><title>Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University</title><description>BACKGROUNDSinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been recognized to be as good as xenografts and alloplastic materials. However, initial results have been promising. OBJECTIVESTo conduct a clinical and radiological comparison of implantation with a simultaneous sinus lift using xenograft or PRF clots. MATERIAL AND METHODSThirty sinus lifts with simultaneous implantation were conducted using a lateral window approach and the tent pole technique, with xenograft (group 1 (G1)) or PRF (group 2 (G2)) as a filling material. To be included in the study, patients must have had an alveolar ridge height of 4-5 mm, no signs of inflammatory processes, good oral hygiene, and no other grafting procedures performed in region of implant insertion. In each case, the measurements taken were probing pocket depth (PPD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth/width (RD/RW), and, on panoramic X-rays, marginal bone loss (MBL), grafted sinus high (GSH), and bone gain (BG). Preand post-operative treatment was applied to reduce the chance of infection. RESULTSDuring the study, 30 implants (hydroxyapatite-coated implants manufactured by SGS - 10 mm in length and 4.2 mm in diameter) were placed. The survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no implant mobility, pain, paresthesia, or inflammatory processes in the direct vicinity of the implants observed, except in 1 patient. After 36 months of follow-up, the radiological assessments for G1 were: GSH 4.5 mm, MBL 0.46 mm and BG 4.53 mm; and for G2: 3.4 mm, 0.6 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. Results of the clinical measurements were for G1: HKT after 36 months (HKT36) 2.46 mm, CAL 0.47 mm and PPD 2 mm; and for G2: HKT36 3.13 mm, CAL 0.6 mm and PPD 2.07 mm. CONCLUSIONSAfter 3 years of follow-up, the results of sinus lifting solely using PRF with simultaneous implantation were promising, especially in terms of soft tissue management. Therefore, PRF can be regarded as an alternative to previously used materials.</description><issn>1899-5276</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjrFOwzAQhj2ARFW68QAeWULti5PYbFVFaaVKINS9cpxzCErsEDsVvD1G8A_3S58-3R0hd5w98Aq4WmuDw5rnAhhckQWXSmUFVOUNWYXwwVKEAsXEgkyvbzt6wSnMgX6h8-2kbaSdo6FzCem5HdBFHTvvfqnRAam3dL_JjE_UtbQbxl67SNNMR5P8SDc0L7PBu_hOJ4yTDyOa2F2Qhjg337fk2uo-4Oq_l-S0ezpt99nx5fmw3RyzkUsZM6EsGiis4FBaUaJAYZSqpKoBmMmltlWjBUBtk9UwXbK6sVpZq4U0aPMluf9bO07-c8YQz0MXDPbpWfRzOEMBkktRcMh_AJhjXrE</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Dominiak, Sebastian</creator><creator>Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa</creator><creator>Popecki, Paweł</creator><creator>Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</creator><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study</title><author>Dominiak, Sebastian ; Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa ; Popecki, Paweł ; Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p188t-49fec25f4126f46e4e4c99789b220c38af7da422bfc25d0a60bdfa9ffa48cef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dominiak, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Popecki, Paweł</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</creatorcontrib><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dominiak, Sebastian</au><au>Karuga-Kuźniewska, Ewa</au><au>Popecki, Paweł</au><au>Kubasiewicz-Ross, Paweł</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study</atitle><jtitle>Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University</jtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>633</spage><epage>640</epage><pages>633-640</pages><issn>1899-5276</issn><abstract>BACKGROUNDSinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been recognized to be as good as xenografts and alloplastic materials. However, initial results have been promising. OBJECTIVESTo conduct a clinical and radiological comparison of implantation with a simultaneous sinus lift using xenograft or PRF clots. MATERIAL AND METHODSThirty sinus lifts with simultaneous implantation were conducted using a lateral window approach and the tent pole technique, with xenograft (group 1 (G1)) or PRF (group 2 (G2)) as a filling material. To be included in the study, patients must have had an alveolar ridge height of 4-5 mm, no signs of inflammatory processes, good oral hygiene, and no other grafting procedures performed in region of implant insertion. In each case, the measurements taken were probing pocket depth (PPD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth/width (RD/RW), and, on panoramic X-rays, marginal bone loss (MBL), grafted sinus high (GSH), and bone gain (BG). Preand post-operative treatment was applied to reduce the chance of infection. RESULTSDuring the study, 30 implants (hydroxyapatite-coated implants manufactured by SGS - 10 mm in length and 4.2 mm in diameter) were placed. The survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no implant mobility, pain, paresthesia, or inflammatory processes in the direct vicinity of the implants observed, except in 1 patient. After 36 months of follow-up, the radiological assessments for G1 were: GSH 4.5 mm, MBL 0.46 mm and BG 4.53 mm; and for G2: 3.4 mm, 0.6 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. Results of the clinical measurements were for G1: HKT after 36 months (HKT36) 2.46 mm, CAL 0.47 mm and PPD 2 mm; and for G2: HKT36 3.13 mm, CAL 0.6 mm and PPD 2.07 mm. CONCLUSIONSAfter 3 years of follow-up, the results of sinus lifting solely using PRF with simultaneous implantation were promising, especially in terms of soft tissue management. Therefore, PRF can be regarded as an alternative to previously used materials.</abstract><doi>10.17219/acem/134202</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1899-5276
ispartof Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University, 2021-06, Vol.30 (6), p.633-640
issn 1899-5276
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528184512
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
title PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-month retrospective study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T12%3A27%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PRF%20versus%20xenograft%20in%20sinus%20augmentation%20in%20case%20of%20HA-coating%20implant%20placement:%20A%2036-month%20retrospective%20study&rft.jtitle=Advances%20in%20clinical%20and%20experimental%20medicine%20:%20official%20organ%20Wroclaw%20Medical%20University&rft.au=Dominiak,%20Sebastian&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=633&rft.epage=640&rft.pages=633-640&rft.issn=1899-5276&rft_id=info:doi/10.17219/acem/134202&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2528184512%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2528184512&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true