Displacement of a dental implant into the maxillary sinus: report of an unusual complication when performing staged sinus floor elevation procedures

Grafting of the maxillary sinus in both one- and two-stage protocols has become a highly predictable surgical technique for site development and for the placement of implants to support dentures. However, despite the predictability and high success rates reported for dental implants placed either simultaneously with or after a sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedure, complications have been reported. The aim of the following case report is to present an uncommon complication in a staged SFE procedure: the displacement of a dental implant into the maxillary sinus during insertion. As implant dentistry is becoming more and more popular among practitioners, and ever more demanding procedures for initial site development in jaws with bony deficiencies are being introduced into daily practice, the displacement of dental implants into the maxillary sinus during implant placement may become a more frequent complication. Management of this complication is presented, discussed, and evaluated in light of the current literature.

The lower quality of preventive care among forced migrants in a country with universal healthcare coverage

OBJECTIVE To assess the association between socio-demographic factors and the quality of preventive care and chronic care of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in a country with universal health care coverage. METHODS Our retrospective cohort assessed a random sample of 966 patients aged 50-80years followed over 2years (2005-2006) in 4 Swiss university primary care settings (Basel/Geneva/Lausanne/Zürich). We used RAND's Quality Assessment Tools indicators and examined recommended preventive care among different socio-demographic subgroups. RESULTS Overall patients received 69.6% of recommended preventive care. Preventive care indicators were more likely to be met among men (72.8% vs. 65.4%; p<0.001), younger patients (from 71.0% at 50-59years to 66.7% at 70-80years, p for trend=0.03) and Swiss patients (71.1% vs. 62.7% in forced migrants; p=0.001). This latter difference remained in multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, civil status and occupation (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86). Forced migrants had lower scores for physical examination and breast and colon cancer screening (all p≤0.02). No major differences were seen for chronic care of CV risk factors. CONCLUSION Despite universal healthcare coverage, forced migrants receive less preventive care than Swiss patients in university primary care settings. Greater attention should be paid to forced migrants for preventive care.