Welcome to our in-depth analysis of two surgical approaches to address severe atrophies of the upper jaw: Galileus Cerclage Sinus® and Maxillary Sinus Lifts. We will explore the distinctive features of both procedures to assist you in making an informed decision.
Galileus Cerclage Sinus®: Innovation in Implantology
Key Features:
- Sinus Encirclement and Pterygoids: Utilizes two pterygoids in the palatine pterygoid area and a nasal implant, encircling the sinus and addressing atrophy without the need for grafts or lifts.
- Precise Positioning: Strategically implanted in the 18/28 area (Pterygoids) and 15/25 area (Nasal Implant) to ensure masticatory stability.
- Minimal Invasiveness: Avoids significant lifts and grafts, providing a comprehensive solution in a single procedure.
Maxillary Sinus Lifts
Key Features:
- Bone Volume Augmentation: Uses bone grafts to increase bone volume in the maxillary sinus area.
- Implant Bed Preparation: Requires creating sufficient space for implants by lifting the sinus floor.
- Additional Complexity: Can be a more complex and invasive procedure compared to Galileus Cerclage Sinus®.
Direct Comparison: Key Points
Surgical Approach:
- Galileus: Minimizes the use of significant lifts and grafts, favoring a less invasive procedure.
- Maxillary Sinus Lifts: Requires space creation through bone grafts, potentially more invasive.
Stability and Minimal Invasiveness:
- Galileus: Provides stability with minimal invasiveness, avoiding significant grafts and lifts.
- Maxillary Sinus Lifts: Increases bone volume but with greater surgical complexity.
Time and Recovery:
- Galileus: Complete procedure in one session, potentially faster recovery.
- Maxillary Sinus Lifts: May require more time and recovery due to complexity.
Conclusion
The choice between Galileus Cerclage Sinus® and Maxillary Sinus Lifts depends on the specific needs of the patient. While both procedures address severe atrophies, Galileus Cerclage Sinus® offers an innovative, minimally invasive approach, whereas Maxillary Sinus Lifts require additional bone grafts, increasing complexity. The decision should weigh effectiveness, invasiveness, and recovery times.
Visits: 1
