الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 209 |  |  |
| | | from | 209 | | |
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the maxillary sinus lifting
technique using a palatal approach versus maxillary sinus lifting technique
using a buccal antral approach.
This study was carried out as a controlled clinical trial, the study
sample included 14 patients. The sample was selected conveniently to fulfill a
list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. All patients were divided into two
equal groups, and had gone maxillary sinus lifting together with implant
placement, group1 :( study group) seven patients had sinus lifting through the
palatal approach technique, and group2 (control group) seven patients had
maxillary sinus lifting using buccal antral approach technique, with
simultaneous implant insertion in both groups.
The selected patients’ age was ranged between 33-59 years with mean
of 44.5 years.
Regarding the number of implants placed within the sinus lifting, 17
implants were placed in group 1 (palatal approach) and 15 implants were
placed in group 2 (buccal approach).
The surgical procedure was performed for group 1 by raising a palatal
mucoperiosteal flap and accessing the maxillary sinus area for lifting through
a piezoelectric palatal window osteotomy, then implant placement was made
simultaneously with sinus lift.
The surgical procedure was performed for group 2 by raising a buccal
mucoperiosteal flap and accessing the maxillary sinus area for lifting through
a piezoelectric buccal window osteotomy, then implant placement was made
simultaneously with sinus lift.
123
Clinical results revealed superiority of group 1 compared to group 2 in
postoperative minimal degree of pain, edema, and wound healing. None of the
implants had failed in both groups with a survival rate 100%.
Radiographic evaluation revealed that in group 1 there was significant
increase in bone density around dental implants and less marginal bone loss
postoperatively. However in group 2 a higher vertical amount of bone gained
around implants postoperatively compared to group 1.
Radiographic results revealed also that despite the fact that all implants
were placed without any grafted material simultaneously with sinus lifting in
the present study, bone formation was evidenced and recorded around all
implants at 6 months postoperatively in both groups.