Comparison Between Corticocancellous Allograft and Bovine Xenograft for Sinus Augmentation: A Radiographic, Histologic, and Histomorphometric Clinical Study.

David Chávarri-Prado, Andoni Jones, Esteban Pérez-Pevida, Markel Diéguez-Pereira, Alejandro Estrada-Martínez, Rodrigo Cabezón-Palacios
{"title":"Comparison Between Corticocancellous Allograft and Bovine Xenograft for Sinus Augmentation: A Radiographic, Histologic, and Histomorphometric Clinical Study.","authors":"David Chávarri-Prado, Andoni Jones, Esteban Pérez-Pevida, Markel Diéguez-Pereira, Alejandro Estrada-Martínez, Rodrigo Cabezón-Palacios","doi":"10.11607/prd.6900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sinus floor augmentation is one of the most common approaches to obtain sufficient bone availability for placing implants in cases with severe bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla. Several bone substitutes are indicated for sinus augmentation, but they may achieve different clinical outcomes. This study aims to compare bovine bone mineral (BBM) with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in a two-stage lateral window sinus grafting approach. Twenty patients received a lateral window sinus elevation with either FDBA or BBM. Postoperative graft height was measured with CBCT. Implants were placed 6 months later, at which time biopsy samples were taken for histologic analysis and new CBCT scans were performed to measure graft height. The mean height reduction at 6 months was 20.27% ± 4.94% for FDBA samples and 5.36% ± 2.41% for BBM samples. The histologic analysis revealed a mean ratio of newly formed bone of 43.70% ± 5.29% for the FDBA group and 38.11% ± 4.03% for the BBM group. The FDBA group also showed a higher amount of residual biomaterial (17.25% ± 10.10%) and connective tissue (14.63% ± 4.38%) compared to the BBM group (15.53% ± 5.42% and 13.11% ± 4.42%, respectively). The differences between groups were statistically significant for the height reduction and newly formed bone (P ≤ .05) but not for the amounts of residual biomaterial and nonmineralized connective tissue (P ≥ .05). Six months after performing a lateral window sinus elevation, the percentage of newly formed bone was significantly higher when using FDBA than when using BBM, although the graft height reduction was also significantly higher for the FDBA group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":"44 3","pages":"309-319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.6900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sinus floor augmentation is one of the most common approaches to obtain sufficient bone availability for placing implants in cases with severe bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla. Several bone substitutes are indicated for sinus augmentation, but they may achieve different clinical outcomes. This study aims to compare bovine bone mineral (BBM) with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in a two-stage lateral window sinus grafting approach. Twenty patients received a lateral window sinus elevation with either FDBA or BBM. Postoperative graft height was measured with CBCT. Implants were placed 6 months later, at which time biopsy samples were taken for histologic analysis and new CBCT scans were performed to measure graft height. The mean height reduction at 6 months was 20.27% ± 4.94% for FDBA samples and 5.36% ± 2.41% for BBM samples. The histologic analysis revealed a mean ratio of newly formed bone of 43.70% ± 5.29% for the FDBA group and 38.11% ± 4.03% for the BBM group. The FDBA group also showed a higher amount of residual biomaterial (17.25% ± 10.10%) and connective tissue (14.63% ± 4.38%) compared to the BBM group (15.53% ± 5.42% and 13.11% ± 4.42%, respectively). The differences between groups were statistically significant for the height reduction and newly formed bone (P ≤ .05) but not for the amounts of residual biomaterial and nonmineralized connective tissue (P ≥ .05). Six months after performing a lateral window sinus elevation, the percentage of newly formed bone was significantly higher when using FDBA than when using BBM, although the graft height reduction was also significantly higher for the FDBA group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮质同种异体移植与牛异种移植在窦增生中的比较:一项放射学、组织学和组织形态计量学临床研究。
对于上颌骨后部骨质严重萎缩的病例,上颌窦底增量术是获得足够骨量以植入种植体的最常用方法之一。有几种骨替代物适用于上颌窦增量,但它们可能会达到不同的临床效果。本研究旨在比较牛骨矿物质(BBM)和冻干骨异体移植(FDBA)在两阶段侧窗上颌窦移植方法中的效果。20 名患者接受了使用 FDBA 或 BBM 的侧窗鼻窦提升术。术后植骨高度通过 CBCT 进行测量。6 个月后植入假体,此时提取活检样本进行组织学分析,并进行新的 CBCT 扫描以测量移植物高度。6 个月后,FDBA 样本的平均高度降低率为 20.27% ± 4.94%,BBM 样本的平均高度降低率为 5.36% ± 2.41%。组织学分析显示,FDBA 组新形成骨的平均比例为 43.70% ± 5.29%,BBM 组为 38.11% ± 4.03%。与 BBM 组(分别为 15.53% ± 5.42% 和 13.11% ± 4.42%)相比,FDBA 组的残留生物材料(17.25% ± 10.10%)和结缔组织(14.63% ± 4.38%)含量也更高。组间差异在高度降低和新形成的骨质方面有统计学意义(P ≤ .05),但在残留生物材料和非矿化结缔组织的数量方面无统计学意义(P ≥ .05)。在进行侧窗窦提升术六个月后,使用 FDBA 时新形成骨的百分比明显高于使用 BBM 时,但 FDBA 组的移植物高度降低率也明显高于 BBM 组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Cement- Versus Screw-Retained Implant Positioning in the Esthetic Zone on Emergence Angle: A Proof-of-Principle Study. The Management of Gingival Fenestration: A Series of Three Cases. Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Patient Communication: Current Possibilities. Autonomous Dental Implant Robotic System Utilization for Implant Placement and Transcrestal Sinus Elevation Using Osseodensification: A Case Report. Alveolar Ridge Preservation Procedures Performed with Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft: Clinical and Histologic Outcomes in a Case Series: Part II.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1