Densah Burs vs. Electrical Mallet in Closed Sinus Lifting.

Alveolar Bone Loss

sinus lift, electrical mallet, osseodensification, bone density

The aim of the comparative study is to evaluate the density and amount of new bone formed (bone height gain)around dental implant placed simultaneously in posterior maxilla after closed sinus floor elevation using Osseodensification burs versus electrical mallet.

Extraction of posterior teeth in the maxilla for long time without rehabilitation of the area increases the incidence of maxillary sinus pneumatization that makes maxillary sinus enlarges in volume over the residual bone of alveolar ridge. Decreasing the height of sub\_ antral bone affects adversely on the bone density which is crucial for implant primary stability causing placement of dental implant quite challenging requiring sinus lifting procedure and bone condensation of residual ridge in addition to bone grafting Summers technique considered the gold standard for closed sinus floor elevation using osteotome and a hand mallet to condense alveolar bone and elevate schneiderian membrane. One of drawbacks of this technique is benign paroxysmal positional vertigo due to force applied by hand mallet is not controlled. Electrical mallet was introduced to overcome (BPPV) as it applies controlled force (daN) in short fraction of seconds(µs) with hand piece secured totally by the surgeon and have a wide variety of instruments placed on the hand piece e.g. osteotomes used in sinus floor elevation . Controlled force of magnetic mallet decrees the risk of schneiderian membrane perforation Osseodensification burs now show great outcomes in closed sinus lifting procedure. Densah burs increase the density of alveolar bone which increase the primary stability of dental implants . Aim of this study is to compare Electrical mallet with Osseodensification burs in closed sinus lifting.

No related papers found yet.

Papers published before 2007-03-01 may not appear yet. Historical indexing is in progress.