Abstract:Purpose: To test a minimally invasive flap in the lateral approach for maxillary sinus floor elevation when compared to a trapezoidal flap. Materials and methods: Each patient received a bilateral sinus elevation procedure based on two different randomly allocated surgical approaches according to a split-mouth design: in the test side, a horizontal incision at mucogingival line was realised; in the control side, a trapezoidal flap was elevated to prepare the lateral window. Each sinus was filled using deproteinised bovine bone and the window covered with a collagen membrane. Implants were inserted according to a two-stage technique 6 months after sinus elevation procedures, submerged and then loaded after 6 months with definitive screw-retained metal-ceramic prostheses. Patients were followed up to 4 months post-loading. Outcome measures included: implant and prosthesis failures, complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, residual bone height and width, recorded before sinus augmentation and 180 days post-intervention by computed tomography (CT) scans, surgical times and patient discomfort data, assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) diagram for each treated side at 1, 7, 14 and 30 days of follow-up. Results: Seventeen patients were enrolled in this trial and none dropped out. Five completely edentulous patients were treated with full-arch prosthetic restorations (Toronto dental prosthesis) and 12 patients with partial metal-ceramic screw-retained prostheses. In total 72 implants were inserted, 37 in the test group and 35 in the control group. No prosthesis or implant failures occurred. A total of seven patients showed complications: five of them had complications in both test and control sides. Eight complications were detected in each group. During maxillary sinus elevation procedures, nine interventions (four from the test group and five from the control group) were affected by intrasurgical complications (six membrane perforations and three severe bleedings); post-surgical complications occurred to three patients (one submucosal emphysema in a patient from the test group, one wound dehiscence and a graft infection both recorded in the control group); a total of four implants in two patients in the test group, versus three implants from one patient in the control group showed peri-implant mucositis. There were no statistically significant differences in complications between the two groups (P = 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-3.11). Patients from the control group, at 4 months after loading, lost on average 0.53 mm (standard deviation [SD] 0.27; 95% CI: 0.40-0.65), and patients from the test group lost on average 0.66 mm (SD 0.27; 95% CI: 0.53-0.78); the difference was not statistically significant (mean difference: 0.07 mm; SD 0.34; 95% CI: -0.03-0.17; P = 0.102). Significant values for bone augmentation in height, 9.26 mm (SD 1.46; 95% CI: 8.56-9.95) in the test group and 9.38 mm (SD 1.95; 95% CI: 8.45-10.30) in the control group, and width, 1.68 mm (SD 1.04; 95% CI: 1.18-2.20) in the test group and 1.60 mm (SD 1.27; 95% CI: 0.99-2.20) in the control group, were found from the 180-day CT scans. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups, either for the bone augmentation data (difference: 0.27 mm; 95% CI: 0.15-0.38; P = 0.60) or for the bone width values (difference: 0.02 mm; 95% CI: 0.07-0.11; P = 0.67). A significant reduction in the total surgical time was found in the test group (mean difference: 6.64 minutes; SD 4.32; 95% CI: 4.58-8.69), with the difference being statistically significant (P = 0.009). Evaluation of patients' postoperative discomfort showed a significant preference for the test procedure: at 1 day the VAS value was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5) in the test group; in the control group the VAS score was 5 (IQR 4 to 8). The intergroup difference was statistically significant (P = 0.002). At the 7-day follow-up, the VAS value was 1 in the test group (IQR 0 to 3) and 3 in the control group (IQR 0 to 7), this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). No differences were detected at 14 and 30 days (P > 0.05). Conclusions: A minimally invasive approach to access the sinus cavity can be as successful as a conventional trapezoidal flap in maxillary sinus floor elevations.

Changes in the Maxillary Sinus Membrane Thickness and Sinus Health Following Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation: Comparing Preoperative Mucosal Thicknesses of Less than and Greater than 5 Millimeters

Responses of Sinus Membrane and Antral Pseudocyst Following Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation with Bone Grafting: A Retrospective Study

Changes in Sinus Membrane Thickness After Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation: A Radiographic Study.

Changes in Bone Graft Height and Influencing Factors after Sinus Floor Augmentation by Using the Lateral Window Approach: A Clinical Retrospective Study of 1 to 2 Years.

Repositioning of the Bone Window in Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation with Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Retrospective Radiographic Study.

[Research Progress in Maxillary Sinus Mucosal Disease Associated with Maxillary Sinus Floor Lifting].

Risk factors for sinus membrane perforation during lateral window maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery: A retrospective study

Bone Volume and Height Changes for Lateral Window Sinus Floor Elevation Using Two Types of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 1-4 Years

Influence of Lateral Windows with Decreased Vertical Height Following Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation: A 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study.

Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in Patients with Sinus Floor Defects: A Retrospective Study with a 1-to 9-Year Follow-Up

Endoscope-assisted Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with a Mini-Lateral Window: A Retrospective Study

The Comparative Evaluation of Transcrestal and Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in Sites with Residual Bone Height ≤6 Mm: A Two-Year Prospective Randomized Study.

Minimally invasive flap compared to a trapezoidal flap in lateral approach maxillary sinus elevation procedures: Four-month post-loading results from a split-mouth randomised controlled trial

The transalveolar approach with the small segmentation method for inclined maxillary sinus floor elevation: A retrospective study

Survival Analysis of Implants Placed Simultaneously with Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in Severely Atrophic Maxilla: A 3- to 12-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of reentry lateral sinus floor elevation after a complete membrane perforation

Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing removing versus retaining antral pseudocyst: A retrospective cohort study

Clinical application of modified minimally invasive incision in maxillary sinus lift and dental implantation surgery

[Application of Modified Lateral Window for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation].

Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation in the Severely Atrophied Maxilla: Concentrated Growth Factors Versus Bone Substitutes. A Controlled Clinical Trial

Clinical and radiographic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years