Global Journal of Medical Research, J: Dentistry and Otolaryngology, Volume 23 Issue 1

height. But the literature [7] suggests that the hydraulic lifter in the CAS kit was not a very user-friendly component. The respondents to the survey desired further developments or modifications of sinus lift devices to make them safer and more user-friendly. The cause of the advancement was thought to be due to the pressure of the saline injected through the hydraulic lifter. [18] We also have mentioned the use of PRF membrane, rather than using any other resorbable membrane because it helps in healing the wound, protecting the surgical sites, assisting soft tissue repair, and with bone graft, acts as a “biological connector.” Also, the suturing technique used resisted any kind of soft tissue tension that might have resulted due to inflammation and puffiness following surgery. Supplementary simple interrupted sutures were also positioned for proper closure of the site. IV. C onclusion Pneumatization of the maxillary sinus because of the lost maxillary posterior tooth prevents implant placement in the respective region. Thus, sinus floor advancement and increase in the density of the bone provides a predictable treatment for the regeneration of the lost osseous structure in the posterior maxilla. Most of the clinicians are generally satisfied with the use of these kits in their daily practice as it holds a number of advantages. However, both have limitations that require developments and modifications to make them safer and more user-friendly. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship and/or publication of this article. A cknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Vishakha Patil, and Dr. Amod Patankar for their support throughout. R eferences R éférences R eferencias 1. Bathla SC, Fry RR, Majumdar K. Maxillary sinus augmentation. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018; 22: 468-73. 2. Smiler DG. The sinus lift graft: Basic technique and variations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1997; 9: 885–93. 3. Wallace SS, Tarnow DP, Froum SJ, Cho SC, Zadeh HH, Stoupel J, et al. Maxillary sinus elevation by lateral window approach: Evolution of technology and technique. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012; 12: 161–71. 4. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980 Aug; 38(8): 613-6. PMID: 6993637. 5. Tatum H., Jr Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986; 30: 207– 29. 6. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994; 15: 152, 154-6 7. Kim YK, Cho YS, Yun PY. Assessment of dentists' subjective satisfaction with a newly developed device for maxillary sinus membrane elevation by the crestal approach. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013 Dec; 43(6): 308-14. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2013. 43.6.308. 8. Fugazzotto PA. Immediate implant placement following a modified trephine: osteotome approach- success rates of 116 implants to 4 years in function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 113–20. 9. Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E. The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol.2004; 75: 511–6. 10. Balaji SM. Direct v/s Indirect sinus lift in maxillary dental implants. Ann Maxillofac Surg.2013; 3: 148–53. 11. Strietzel FP, Nowak M, Kuchler I, Friedmann A. Peri- im-plant alveolar bone loss with respect to bone quality after use of the osteotome technique: results of a retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res.2002; 13: 508-13. 12. Kolhatkar S, Cabanilla L, Bhola M. Inadequate vertical bone dimension managed by bone-added osteotome sinus floor elevation (BAOSFE): a literature review and case report. J Contemp Dent Pract.2009; 10: 81-8. 13. Leblebicioglu B, Ersanli S, Karabuda C, Tosun T, Gokdeniz H. Radiographic evaluation of dental implants placed us-ing an osteotome technique. J Periodontol.2005; 76: 385-90. 14. Fugazzotto PA, De PS. Sinus floor augmentation at the time of maxillary molar extraction: success and failure rates of 137 implants in function for up to 3 years. J Periodontol.2002;73: 39-44 15. Zitzmann NU, Scharer P. Sinus elevation procedures in the resorbed posterior maxilla. Comparison of the crestal and lateral approaches. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod.1998; 85: 8–17. 16. Emmerich D, Att W, Stappert C. Sinus floor elevation using osteotomes: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Periodontol. 2005; 76: 1237–51. 17. Tetsch J, Tetsch P, Lysek DA. Long-term results after lateral and osteotome technique sinus floor elevation: a retrospective analysis of 2190 implants over a time period of 15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res.2010; 21: 497-503. 18. Jesch P, Bruckmoser E, Bayerle A, Eder K, Bayerle- Eder M, Watzinger F. A pilot study of a minimally invasive technique to elevate the sinus floor 38 Year Global Journal of Medical Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I ( D ) 2023 J © 2023 Global Journals Lateral Approach Sinus (LAS) and Crestal Approach Sinus (CAS): The Unravelled Paraphernalia for Maxillary Sinus Membrane Advancement