Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 May 14

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 May 14

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 bi-center, 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 Pietro SCHINCAGLIA 2, 5, Orio RICCARDI 2, 6, Alberto BANDIERI 3, 4, Leonardo TROMBELLI 1, 2

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


PDF


AIM: 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 bi-center, 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 (54’ vs 86’) 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

top of page