Clinical, radiographic, and histological/histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus grafting with deproteinized porcine or bovine bone mineral: A randomized clinical trial-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Clinical, radiographic, and histological/histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus grafting with deproteinized porcine or bovine bone mineral: A randomized clinical trial

Published:2023-08-23 Issue:11 Volume:34 Page:1230-1247
ISSN:0905-7161
Container-title:Clinical Oral Implants Research
language:en
Short-container-title:Clinical Oral Implants Res

Author:

Krennmair Stefan¹²,Postl Lukas¹²^ORCID,Schwarze Uwe Yacine³,Malek Michael¹,Stimmelmayr Michael⁴,Krennmair Gerald⁵^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Keplerklinikum Linz Johannes Kepler University (JKU) Linz Linz Austria

2. NumBiolab Research Associate Ludwig‐Maximilian University (LMU) Munich Germany

3. Division of Oral Surgery and Orthodontics and Musculo‐Skeletal Research Unit for Biomaterials Medical University Graz Graz Austria

4. Department of Prosthodontics Ludwig‐Maximilian University (LMU) Munich Germany

5. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School Sigmund Freud Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe present study aimed to compare histomorphometrically evaluated new bone formation, radiographically measured graft stability, and clinical implant outcome between maxillary sinus grafting with either deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM).Materials and MethodsThirty maxillary sinuses were initially included and randomly assigned to the test group (TG; DPBM, n = 15) or control group (CG; DBBM, n = 15). After a healing period (6 months), axially retrieved bone biopsies of the molar region were used for histological/histomorphometric analysis of new bone formations. Additionally, radiographically measured graft stability and clinical implant outcome were assessed.ResultsTwenty‐three sinus sites with 10 sinuses of the TG and 13 of the CG were ultimately available for data and statistical analysis. In the TG, a slightly, but yet significantly (p = .040) higher proportion of new bone formation (TG: 27.7 ± 5.6% vs. CG: 22.9 ± 5.1%) and a lesser (p = .019) amount of connective (non‐mineralized) tissue (TG: 47.5 ± 9.5% vs. CG: 56.1 ± 9.5%) was found than in the CG. However, both xenografts showed comparable (n.s.) residual bone graft (TG: 23.7 ± 7.2% vs. CG: 21.1 ± 9.85.6%), bone‐to‐graft contacts (TG: 26.2 ± 9.8% vs. CG: 30.8 ± 13.8%), similar graft height reduction over time (TG: 12.9 ± 6.7% CG: 12.4 ± 5.8%) and implant survival/success rate (100%). At the 3‐year post‐loading evaluation, the peri‐implant marginal bone loss (TG: 0.52 ± 0.19 mm; CG: 0.48 ± 0.15 mm) and the peri‐implant health conditions (TG: 87.5%/CG: 81.2%) did not differ between implants inserted in both xenografts used.ConclusionsThe use of DPBM or DBBM for maxillary sinus augmentation is associated with comparable bone formation providing stable graft dimension combined with healthy peri‐implant conditions.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Oral Surgery

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/clr.14164

Reference70 articles.

1. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?;Aghaloo T. L.;International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants,2007

2. Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

3. Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone—A systematic review and meta‐analysis;Al‐Nawas B.;European Journal of Oral Implantology,2014

4. Effect of religious beliefs on bone graft selection for oral and maxillofacial surgery in Saudi Arabia

5. The Influence of the Bucco-Palatal Distance on Sinus Augmentation Outcomes