Comparison of the effect of grinding and bone chiseling maxillary sinus internal lifting in dentition defects of posterior teeth with insufficient vertical bone mass

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2026.02.010

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the effect of grinding and bone chiseling maxillary sinus internal lifting in dentition defects of posterior teeth with insufficient vertical bone mass. METHODS: A total of 92 patients with dentition defects in the posterior teeth area due to insufficient vertical bone mass admitted from January 2020 to December 2021 were selected and divided into the control group (n=46) and the experimental group (n=46) by random number table method. The control group was treated with maxillary sinus floor internal lifting via grinding, while the experimental group was treated with maxillary sinus floor internal lifting via bone chiseling. The operative conditions, bone resorption, residual bone height (RBH), implant success rate, peri-implant soft tissue, patient's satisfaction and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in implant length and diameter between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time in the experimental group was significantly longer than in the control group (P<0.05), and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher than in the control group(P<0.05). One year after surgery, there were no significant differences in probing depth (PD), gingival papillary index, modified sulcular bleeding index (mSBI) and modified plaque index (mPLI) between the two groups (P>0.05), the satisfaction rate of patients in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the total incidence of complications between the two groups(P>0.05). Three years after surgery, the bone resorption amounts at the root, distal and near midedge of the implants in both groups increased significantly(P<0.05), and more prominent in the experimental group (P<0.05). RBH in both groups increased significantly(P<0.05), and more prominent in the experimental group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the success rate of the implants between the two groups(P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Internal lifting of the maxillary sinus by grinding and bone chiseling has good effect in dentition defects of posterior teeth with insufficient vertical bone mass and has a relatively small impact on the soft tissues around the implants. Internal maxillary sinus lifting with bone chisel can promote bone tissue absorption, increase RBH, and improve patients' satisfaction, with increased intraoperative trauma.

Key words: Grinding, Bone chisel, Internal maxillary sinus lifting, Insufficient vertical bone mass, Posterior dentition defect, Complication

CLC Number:

R782.1

Zhang Yue, Huang Ning, Li Ran. Comparison of the effect of grinding and bone chiseling maxillary sinus internal lifting in dentition defects of posterior teeth with insufficient vertical bone mass[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2026, 35(2): 171-175.

References

[1] Gamborena I, Sasaki Y, Blatz MB.Predictable immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2021, 33(1): 158-172.
[2] Clarot S, Christensen BJ, Chapple AG, et al.Prediction of residual alveolar bone height in the posterior maxilla after dental extractions[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 80(3): 517-524.
[3] Díaz-Olivares LA, Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann J, Martínez-Rodríguez N, et al. Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Implant Dent, 2021, 7(1): 91-104.
[4] Bhalla N, Dym H.Update on maxillary sinus augmentation[J]. Dent Clin North Am, 2021, 65(1): 197-210.
[5] Andrés-García R, Ríos-Santos JV, Herrero-Climent M, et al.Sinus floor elevation via an osteotome technique without biomaterials[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021, 18(3): 1103.
[6] Shah D, Chauhan C, Shah R.Survival rate of dental implant placed using various maxillary sinus floor elevation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Indian Prosthodont Soc, 2022, 22(3): 215-224.
[7] Karaca Ç, Koç O, Er N, et al.Evaluation of sinus membrane perforation in osteotome sinus floor elevation with and without grafting[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2022, 48(6): 550-556.
[8] 张春元, 陈宇, 姜瑞, 等. 头后仰位骨钻磨除法提升上颌窦底同期种植术[J]. 中山大学学报(医学科学版), 2015, 36(5): 763-767.
[9] Zheng X, Huang L, Huang S, et al.Influence of anatomical factors related to maxillary sinus on outcomes of transcrestal sinus floor elevation[J]. J Dent Sci, 2022, 17(1): 438-443.
[10] Aslroosta H, Paknejad M, Davari M, et al.Semelil as adjunctive therapy in chronic periodontitis: a preliminary randomized controlled clinical study[J]. Iran J Pharm Res, 2021, 20(1): 339-347.
[11] Gabay E, Cohen O, Horwitz J.Supportive periodontal therapy affects dental implants probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and bone level: a 4- to 8-year follow-up study[J]. Quintessence Int, 2021, 52(4): 300-306.
[12] Lopes A, de Araújo Nobre M, Ferro A, et al. Zygomatic implants placed in immediate function through extra-maxillary surgical technique and 45 to 60 degrees angulated abutments for full-arch rehabilitation of extremely atrophic maxillae: short-term outcome of a retrospective cohort[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(16): 3600.
[13] Malekzadeh M, Kia SJ, Mashaei L, et al.Oral nano-curcumin on gingival inflammation in patients with gingivitis and mild periodontitis[J]. Clin Exp Dent Res, 2021, 7(1): 78-84.
[14] Dourado GB, Volpato GH, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, et al. Likert scale vs visual analog scale for assessing facial pleasantness[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2021, 160(6): 844-852.
[15] Kandel F, Shawky M, Gibaly A, et al.Assessment of absorbable gelatin sponge for maxillary sinus floor elevation versus anorganic bovine bone minerals: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023, 27(3): 469-478.
[16] Liu S, Chen S, Chen Z, et al.Effects of bone grafting and non-bone grafting on implant stability and new bone formation in patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor elevation combined with bicon short implants[J]. Altern Ther Health Med, 2023, 29(8): 240-245.
[17] Steller D, Falougy M, Mirzaei P, et al.Retrospective analysis of time-related three-dimensional iliac bone graft resorption following sinus lift and vertical augmentation in the maxilla[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 51(4): 545-551.
[18] Stacchi C, Bernardello F, Spinato S, et al.Intraoperative complications and early implant failure after transcrestal sinus floor elevation with residual bone height ≤5 mm: a aretrospective multicenter study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2022, 33(8): 783-791.
[19] Carosi P, Lorenzi C, Lio F, et al.Short implants (≤6 mm) as an alternative treatment option to maxillary sinus lift[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 50(11): 1502-1510.
[20] Filipov I, Bolognesi F, Chirila L, et al.Preliminary study with the use of a titanium mesh as space maker and implant primary stabilization for one-stage sinus lift in cases with less than 1.5 mm residual bone[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(21): 4853.
[21] 史洋. 剩余牙槽骨高度不足5 mm时行上颌窦底提升术的临床研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学,2020.
[22] Lie S, Claessen R, Leung C, et al.Non-grafted versus grafted sinus lift procedures for implantation in the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 51(1): 122-132.
[23] 孙辉, 陈志方, 王晓东. 下颌水平低位阻生齿拔除术治疗下颌阻生第三磨牙对患者牙周健康状况的影响[J]. 湖南师范大学学报(医学版), 2022, 19(4): 74-77.
[24] Albash Z, Khalil A, Sleman N.Influence of implant protrusion length and initial bone height on intrasinus bone gain in transalveolar sinus floor elevation without bone graft: a 2-year retrospective study[J]. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2023, 85(7): 3291-3297.
[25] 王悦, 郭振兴, 王蕾, 等. 牙槽骨严重吸收患者不同种植修复方式的修复效果比较[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 2018, 28(4): 203-208.