We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 3 (2010), No. 3     13. Sep. 2010
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 3 (2010), No. 3  (13.09.2010)

Page 221-232, PubMed:20847992

Crestal sinus lift for implant rehabilitation: a randomised clinical trial comparing the Cosci and the Summers techniques. A preliminary report on complications and patient preference
Checchi, Luigi / Felice, Pietro / Antonini, Elisa Soardi / Cosci, Ferdinando / Pellegrino, Gerardo / Esposito, Marco
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of two different techniques to lift the maxillary sinus via a crestal approach: the Summers versus the Cosci technique.
Materials and methods: Fifteen partially edentulous patients missing bilaterally maxillary molars and/ or premolars having 4 to 7 mm of residual crestal height and at least 5 mm thickness below the maxillary sinuses measured on computed tomography scans were randomised to have implants placed in sinuses crestally lifted according to the Cosci or Summers technique with bone substitutes according to a split-mouth design. Implants were left to heal submerged for 6 months. Implants were loaded with acrylic provisional crowns/prostheses. Screw-retained definitive metal-ceramic prostheses were delivered 4 months after provisional loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, operation time, operator preference, and patient preference assessed 1 month after surgery and 1 month after delivery of the final prostheses by a blinded outcome assessor. All patients were followed up to 5 months after loading (1 year after implant placement).
Results: Nineteen study implants were placed according to each technique. No patient dropped out and no implant failed. No discomfort/complications occurred at sites treated with the Cosci technique whereas 12 patients reported discomfort during the augmentation procedure at the side treated with the Summers technique, this was statistically significant, and in one of these patients a perforation of the sinus membrane occurred. Postoperatively, headache was reported by nine patients and swelling occurred in three of these patients at the Summers treated sides. Statistically significantly less time was required to place implants according to the Cosci technique (33 versus 24 minutes, on average). The two operators and 14 out of 15 patients preferred the Cosci technique.
Conclusions: Both crestal sinus lift techniques were successful but the Cosci technique required less surgical time, produced less intra- and postoperative morbidity and was preferred by patients.

Conflict-of-interest statement: This was an investigator initiated trial, however the trial was partially supported by Zimmer Dental, Vittorio Veneto (TV), Italy. One of the authors (Dr Cosci) who treated eight patients in this study is the inventor of the Cosci technique and was a prerequisite of the sponsor to support the trial.

Keywords: bone augmentation, crestal sinus lift, patient morbidity, patient preference, surgical techniques