Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement
(2022). Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement. EKB Journal Management System, 9(2), 38-44. doi: 10.21608/mjd.2022.241150
. "Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement". EKB Journal Management System, 9, 2, 2022, 38-44. doi: 10.21608/mjd.2022.241150
(2022). 'Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement', EKB Journal Management System, 9(2), pp. 38-44. doi: 10.21608/mjd.2022.241150
Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement. EKB Journal Management System, 2022; 9(2): 38-44. doi: 10.21608/mjd.2022.241150

Ethoss versus Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix for Maxillary Lateral Sinus Lifting with Simultaneous Implant Placement

Mansoura Journal of Dentistry
Article 2, Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2022, Page 38-44  XML PDF (648.85 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/mjd.2022.241150
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Ethoss and Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix (sticky bone) for maxillary lateral sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement. Patients and methods: This study included 20 patients with missed maxillary posterior teeth and they were treated by lateral maxillary sinus lift with Simultaneous Implant Placement. The patients were equally and randomly classified into two equal groups. Group I used Ethoss for bone grafting (n=10) while group II used Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix (MBM) (n=10). All patient was evaluated clinically (the stability of the dental implant, the depth of pocket around the implant, and the gingival bleeding index) while radiographically with CBCT after implant placement (T0), 6 months (T6) and 9 months(T9) after collecting the evaluation data, they were entered and analyzed statistically. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between both groups clinically in an interval evaluation period with the Modified sulcus bleeding Index and Peri-implant pocket depth except in Implant Stability Assessment in T9 with group I has high significant difference (P=0.015) when comparing with group II, also was no statistically significant difference between both groups radiologically in bone gain in an interval evaluation period. Conclusion: Both Ethoss and MBM can be used for maxillary sinus augmentation, with no difference between them clinically and radiographically, and using Ethoss grafting material is preferable due to the easy handling properties, fast hardening, time-saving and good stability after 9 months.
Statistics
Article View: 145
PDF Download: 171