ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 February;71(1):16-24

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04539-3

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Implant-supported rehabilitation following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: analysis of costs and quality of life from a bicenter, parallel-arm randomized trial

Roberto FARINA ^{1, 2} ✉, Anna SIMONELLI ², Giovanni FRANCESCHETTI ¹, Domenico TRAVAGLINI ^{3, 4}, Ugo CONSOLO ^{3, 4}, Luigi MINENNA ², Gian P. SCHINCAGLIA ^{2, 5}, Orio RICCARDI ^{2, 6}, Alberto BANDIERI ^{3, 4}, Leonardo TROMBELLI ^{1, 2}

¹ Unit of Dentistry, University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; ² Research Center for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; ³ Unit of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Integrated Activity and Specialist Surgeries, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy; ⁴ Department of Head-Neck Specialistic Surgeries, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; ⁵ School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA; ⁶ Private Practitioner, Torre Pedrera, Rimini, Italy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate costs and specific aspects of oral-health related quality of life (OhRQoL) related to the period between the surgery phase of transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation (tSFE and lSFE, respectively) and 6 months after delivery of implant-supported prosthesis.
METHODS: A bicenter, parallel-arm, randomized trial comparatively evaluating tSFE and lSFE when applied concomitantly with implant placement was conducted. At 6 months after prosthesis delivery, data on cost-associated items related to the post-surgery period and selected aspects of OhRQoL were collected.
RESULTS: Analyses of costs and quality of life was conducted on 56 patients (tSFE: 28; lSFE: 28) and 54 patients (tSFE: 26; lSFE: 28), respectively. Significantly lower dose of anesthetic (2 vs. 3 vials), amount of xenograft (420 mg vs. 1975 mg), and duration of surgery (54ʹ vs. 86ʹ) were observed for tSFE compared to lSFE. No significant differences in the number of additional surgical sessions, postoperative exams, specialist consultations and drug consumption were found between groups. In a limited fraction of patients in both groups, improvements were observed for pain (tSFE: 3.8%; lSFE: 7.4%), comfort in eating any food (tSFE: 11.5%; lSFE: 3.6%), self-consciousness (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 14.3%), and satisfaction about life (tSFE: 19.2%; lSFE: 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The surgery phase of maxillary sinus floor elevation is characterized by more favorable cost-associated items for tSFE compared to lSFE. Differently, tSFE and lSFE do not differ for either costs related to the post-surgery phases or impact of the implant-supported rehabilitation on specific aspects of OhRQoL.

KEY WORDS: Bone regeneration; Costs and cost analysis; Dental implants; Maxillary sinus; Quality of life; Surgical procedures, operative