Talk:Sinus lift

message: Im trying to find any info on assisting for the Sinus Lift Procedure. I am a Perio Assistant and I have my first Sinus Lift coming soon and I would love feedback on this. 68.37.189.216
:Well, there's nothing really to tell you other than follow what the doctor asks you to do.  Specific questions can be forwarded to my talk page, if you desire. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I will be editing this article heavily in the next week or so -- I have left a  tag off the page, but if you have any edits, please refrain from submitting until the article is in some form of appropriate fashion for Wikipedia. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilt Tatum, inovator of this procedure and recent editor, has been hesitant to assist in establishing independant, third-part sourcing and, as such, I have not been able to procure early data for this procedure. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revamp 

message: Hi all. I know very little about this procedure, but as I was investigating it on the web two concerns arose that I'd like to submit to the collective judgment of folks who keep an eye on this page:
(1) Our article currently says that after this procedure, "the floor of the sinus will now be roughly 10mm or so more superior than it was before". I suspect the claim of this much bone augmentation might be significantly too high; see following.
(2) I think we also need to differentiate for our readers between the (two?) methods used during this surgery to raise the Schneiderian membrane, and to tell them that the risk of perforations to that membrane when the "traditional method" is used is very high, occurring in up to 56% of such surgeries, according to one paper; see following.   
The 10mm claim appears be contradicted by what I imagine is a fairly authoritative source, although probably not a citable one. I refer to the website for Zimmer Dental, a firm that makes implants and implant surgery devices, including a balloon device for use in what one of the refs currently in our article calls the "Hydraulic Sinus Condensing Technique".
The Zimmer Dental page says "the traditional procedure results in 2-3mm of sinus height lift". The context of that page makes it clear that the phrase "the traditional procedure" ( which I know nothing about ) is to be understood as being contrasted to the hydraulic balloon technique for raising the Schneiderian membrane. The Zimmer site goes on to mention that when 1cc of saline is used to inflate the firm's hydraulic balloon product that the expected sinus elevation is 6mm plus or minus 0.5mm.
The same Zimmer Dental web page says that the "traditional" ( non-balloon ) method of elevating the Schneiderian membrane "commonly results in perforations to the up to 56 percent of the time". That's cited on their website to this paper. In looking around I also found another paper on the topic, which puts the perforation rate at between 11% and 56%. I'm not qualified to evaluate papers or stats on this topic, however, and would be grateful if an editor who is would go ahead edit the article to address both this concern, and the one about the 10mm augmentation claim that I raised above. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Zimmer Dental website greatly underestimates the conventionally attained increase in sub-sinus bone, but that's because it's comparing itself to osteotome, not lateral window. !There are two types of sinus lifts -- an internal (osteotome) method and an external (lateral window) technique.  Sure, the article can be developed much more, and in doing so, the difference between the two methods can (and should) eventually be highlighted.  The lateral window technique is the one that can raise the floor ~10mm, while Zimmer is saying how their balloon technique, as an internal technique, can obtain a greater height than conventional osteotome tapping.  Be that as it may, it requires a separate apparatus that isn't necessarily worth it.  And in regard to the stats, numbers become meaningless because everyone does their procedure differently.  Tapping an osteotome to native bone to infracture it will cause lots more perforations than restricting oneself to only tapping bone, and there aren't enough studies out there with enough power to really give us a good idea of what causes what how often.  But one day, when the article is improved (and perhaps now that you point it out, I will put it on my radar screen), I will take all of this into consideration when broadening the scope of the currently limited focus.  Thanks so much! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two concerns 

message: I am not free to work on this article currently. My advice to anyone who wants to take it on:
* WP:MEDRS-- guide to selecting suitable sources for medical articles
* WP:MEDMOS-- style guide for medical articles 
Good luck. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed merge, but this page is still in need of a lot of attention 

message: Very niche topic, a type of sinus lift. Lesion (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Hydraulic sinus condensing]]