View clinical trials related to Maxillary Sinus Augmentation.
Filter by:Twenty one patients with deficient posterior maxilla and alveolar bone height ≤ 5mm were included.Those patients randomly divided into 3 equal groups: 1. Group 1: 7 patients treated by osteotome closed sinus lift with bone grafting (xenograft) and implant placement. 2. Group 2: 7 patients treated by densah burs(Versah, Jackson, MI, USA) sinus lift with bone grafting (xenograft) and implant placement. 3. Group 3: 7 patients treated by piezoelectric (Piezotome; Satelec) crestal sinus lift with bone grafting (xenograft) and implant placement.
The decrease in maxillary alveolar ridge bone volume and sinus pneumatization are a challenge to implant-assisted prosthetic rehabilitation. Guided bone regeneration using bone substitutes is an adequate alternative for maxillary sinus augmentation. Objective: To histologically and histomorphometrically compare bone repair response to 250 to 1000 µm and 1000 to 2000 µm anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) particles as bone substitute in maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA).
The aim of the present prospective randomized controlled study is to clinically and histologically investigate the safety and efficacy of bony wall repositioning compared to rotary window preparation with membrane coverage in maxillary sinus floor augmentation.
This study was carried out to compare the outcome of sinus lift without grafting material, versus the use of moldable, self hardening calcium phosphate biomaterials with simultaneous implant placement.
Two stage sinus lifting using Nano hydroxyapatite particles [Nanostreams] versus Deprotenized bovine bone [Tutogen] : Randomized clinical trial. comparing between Height of new bone formation, Bone area percent( Histomorphometric)