The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Low Window Technique: Comparison between Manual and CAD/CAM-guided Design

Terry Zaniol, Alex Zaniol, Saverio Ravazzolo

Keywords : Computer-aided design, Computer-aided manufacturing, Guided surgery, Low window approach, Sinus augmentation

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3079

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this bench study was to provide quantitative data addressing the difference between the manual low window design and the corresponding computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-guided design. Materials and methods: Five cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of as many patients (two males and three females, age range: 61–78 years) with partially edentulous maxilla to be rehabilitated through sinus augmentation, one- or two-step implant placement, and implant-supported prostheses were used to 3D-print the corresponding five maxillary stereolithographic models. Five independent highly skilled maxillofacial surgeons, who were provided with the patients’ orthopantomographs, drew on the models the access windows for sinus augmentation according to the “high” (standard) and the low window design both by free-hand and using a surgical guide prepared by computer-guided design. Accuracy and inter-operator variability were analyzed. Results: The results of this study showed that the manual design is associated with a clinically relevant shift in the low window shape, size, and positioning compared with the CAD/CAM-based positioning. All four directions (apical, coronal, mesial, and distal) showed on average the same extent of placement error (approximately 3 mm). Overall, the intra-operator variability was very similar, and measurements were not influenced by the operator (low inter-operator variability). Conclusion: The compromised accuracy and reproducibility in the manual design may limit the advantages of the low window technique. Thus, within the limits of this study, the computer-guided approach should be preferred vs the manual approach when performing a low window sinus lift. This may limit intra- and postoperative complications, as well as patient discomfort. Clinical significance: The “best option” CAD/CAM-guided design should be chosen when performing a low window sinus lift because it reduces discrepancies in selected parameters both between and within groups. This should facilitate the achievement of better results by dentists who have insufficient experience performing implant surgery.


PDF Share
  1. Danesh-Sani SA, Loomer PM, Wallace SS. A comprehensive clinical review of maxillary sinus floor elevation: anatomy, techniques, biomaterials and complications. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;54(7):724-730. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.05.008.
  2. Tatum H Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 1986;30(2):207-229.
  3. Tatum OH Jr, Lebowitz MS, Tatum CA, et al. Sinus augmentation. Rationale, development, long-term results. N Y State Dent J 1993;59(5):43-48.
  4. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38(8):613-616.
  5. Del Fabbro M, Wallace SS, Testori T. Long-term implant survival in the grafted maxillary sinus: a systematic review. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33(6):773-783. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1288.
  6. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 Suppl:237-259.
  7. Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(5):CD008397. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008397.pub2.
  8. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium 1994;15(2):152, 154.156, 158 passim; quiz 162.
  9. Cosci F, Luccioli M. A new sinus lift technique in conjunction with placement of 265 implants: a 6-year retrospective study. Implant Dent 2000;9(4):363-368. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-200009040- 00014.
  10. Fugazzotto PA. The modified trephine/osteotome sinus augmentation technique: technical considerations and discussion of indications. Implant Dent 2001;10(4):259-264. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-200110000- 00009.
  11. Trombelli L, Franceschetti G, Stacchi C, et al. Minimally invasive transcrestal sinus floor elevation with deproteinized bovine bone or ƒÀ-tricalcium phosphate: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41(3):311-319. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12210.
  12. Testori T, Wallace SS, Monteverdi A, et al. Complications: diagnosis and management. In: Testori T, Weinstein R, Wallace SS, editors. Maxillary Sinus Surgery and Alternatives in Treatment. Berlin, Germany: Quintessence Publishing; 2009. pp. 311.323.
  13. Stern A, Green J. Sinus lift procedures: an overview of current techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2012;56(1):219-233. DOI: 10.1016/j. cden.2011.09.003.
  14. Guerrero JS, Al-Jandan BA. Lateral wall sinus floor elevation for implant placement: revisiting fundamentals and the surgical technique. J Calif Dent Assoc 2013;41(3):185.187, 190.195.
  15. Wallace SS, Mazor Z, Froum SJ, et al. Schneiderian membrane perforation rate during sinus elevation using piezosurgery: clinical results of 100 consecutive cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007;27(5):413-419.
  16. Fugazzotto P, Melnick PR, Al-Sabbagh M. Complications when augmenting the posterior maxilla. Dent Clin North Am 2015;59(1):97-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.09.005.
  17. Cho SC, Wallace SS, Froum SJ, et al. Influence of anatomy on Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus elevation surgery: threedimensional analysis. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13(2):160-163.
  18. Kang SJ, Shin SI, Herr Y, et al. Anatomical structures in the maxillary sinus related to lateral sinus elevation: a cone beam computed tomographic analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24 Suppl A100:75-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02378.x.
  19. Zaniol T, Zaniol A, Tedesco A, et al. The low window sinus lift: a CADCAM- guided surgical technique for lateral sinus augmentation: a retrospective case series. Implant Dent 2018;27(4):512-520. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000776.
  20. Zaniol T, Zaniol A. A rational approach to sinus augmentation: the low window sinus lift. Case Rep Dent 2017;2017:7610607. DOI: 10.1155/2017/7610607.
  21. Mandelaris GA. A novel approach to the antral sinus bone graft technique: precise outlining of the lateral wall using SimPlant Module CMF for prototype cutting guides. A case report. Dental Horizons 2008;5(1):9-12.
  22. Mangano F, Zecca P, Pozzi-Taubert S, et al. Maxillary sinus augmentation using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology. Int J Med Robot 2013;9(3):331-338. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1460.
  23. Dfhaese J, Van de Velde T, Komiyama A, et al. Accuracy and complications using computer designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(3):321-335. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x.
  24. Gateno J, Allen ME, Teichgraeber JF, et al. An in vitro study of the accuracy of a new protocol for planning distraction osteogenesis of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58(9):985.990; discussion 990-1. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2000.8740.
  25. Park C, Raigrodski AJ, Rosen J, et al. Accuracy of implant placement using precision surgical guides with varying occlusogingival heights: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(6):372-381. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60080-9.
  26. Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, et al. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeonsf experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30(4):367-369. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5179.
  27. Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, et al. Accuracy of computerguided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(3):407-413. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.004.
  28. Dfhaese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, et al. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2017;73(1):121-133. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12175.
  29. Marliere DAA, Demetrio MS, Picinini LS, et al. Accuracy of computerguided surgery for dental implant placement in fully edentulous patients: a systematic review. Eur J Dent 2018;12(1):153-160. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_249_17.
  30. Osman AH, Mansour H, Atef M, et al. Computer guided sinus floor elevation through lateral window approach with simultaneous implant placement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(2):137-143. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12559.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.