Clinical, Radiological, and Histomorphometric Comparison of the Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral and Titanium-Prepared Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2024.11.006
Seyma Eken, Berceste Guler Ayyıldız, Berkan Altay, Neziha Senem Arı, Orhan Özatik
{"title":"Clinical, Radiological, and Histomorphometric Comparison of the Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral and Titanium-Prepared Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.","authors":"Seyma Eken, Berceste Guler Ayyıldız, Berkan Altay, Neziha Senem Arı, Orhan Özatik","doi":"10.1016/j.joms.2024.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) is a standard and predictable procedure to increase bone height in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Many biomaterials are employed in this technique; however, autologous platelet concentrates have been found to reduce clinical recovery time and improve bone gain in MSA.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the radiographic, histomorphometric, and implant stability outcomes of titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin (T-PRF) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in a two-stage MSA technique.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting, sample: </strong>This randomized controlled split-mouth study included patients requiring bilateral two-stage MSA at the Periodontology Department of Kutahya Health Sciences University between March 2022 and April 2023. Patients with systemic comorbidities and residual bone height >5 mm in the bilateral posterior maxilla were excluded.</p><p><strong>Predictor variable: </strong>The predictor variable was the two-stage MSA technique. Each surgical site was randomly assigned to the T-PRF or DBBM group for two-stage MSA.</p><p><strong>Main outcome variables: </strong>The primary outcome was the histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of new bone between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes included radiographic evaluation of total bone height (ToBH), bone gain, bone density (BD), and graft volume (GV) on cone-beam computed tomography 6 months post-MSA, clinical assessment of primary implant stability at implant placement and secondary stability 3 months postplacement, and histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of residual particles, percentage of connective tissue, and percentage of blood vessels from bone biopsy samples collected 6 months after MSA.</p><p><strong>Covariates: </strong>Age, sex, periodontitis susceptibility, and smoking status were treated as covariates.</p><p><strong>Analyses: </strong>The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for bivariate comparisons between 2 groups, and the Pearson or Spearman test was used to analyze correlations of variables within groups. A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample was composed of 10 patients with bilateral maxillary sinuses, 20 MSA regions, 8 (80%) males and 2 (20%) females with a mean age of 51.30 (9.06) year. The percentage of new bone was 19.48 ± 14.60 μm<sup>2</sup> in the T-PRF group and 8.31 ± 5.47 μm<sup>2</sup> in the DBBM group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .074). Radiographic measurements showed ToBH, GV, and BD values of 10.64 ± 3.96 mm, 989.89 ± 523.07 mm<sup>3</sup>, and 192.09 ± 127.90 hounsfield unit in the T-PRF group and 14.25 ± 1.65 mm, 1,519.39 ± 432.61 mm<sup>3</sup>, and 492.77 ± 117.35 hounsfield unit in the DBBM group, respectively. ToBH, GV, and BD values were statistically significant between the groups (P = .01 and P = .00). Primary and secondary implant stability in the T-PRF group were 71.11 ± 12.48 implant stability quotient (ISQ) and 68.03 ± 6.81 ISQ, respectively, compared with 67.94 ± 19.84 ISQ and 72.46 ± 11.21 ISQ in the DBBM group. The difference was not statistically significant between the groups (P = .41 and P = .33).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Although T-PRF demonstrated inferior radiographic outcomes compared with DBBM during the initial6-month healing phase, both techniques yielded comparable results regarding new bone formation and implant stability. Further research is warranted to explore the efficacy of different T-PRF applications in MSA. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05596084).</p>","PeriodicalId":16612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.11.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) is a standard and predictable procedure to increase bone height in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Many biomaterials are employed in this technique; however, autologous platelet concentrates have been found to reduce clinical recovery time and improve bone gain in MSA.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the radiographic, histomorphometric, and implant stability outcomes of titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin (T-PRF) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in a two-stage MSA technique.

Study design, setting, sample: This randomized controlled split-mouth study included patients requiring bilateral two-stage MSA at the Periodontology Department of Kutahya Health Sciences University between March 2022 and April 2023. Patients with systemic comorbidities and residual bone height >5 mm in the bilateral posterior maxilla were excluded.

Predictor variable: The predictor variable was the two-stage MSA technique. Each surgical site was randomly assigned to the T-PRF or DBBM group for two-stage MSA.

Main outcome variables: The primary outcome was the histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of new bone between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes included radiographic evaluation of total bone height (ToBH), bone gain, bone density (BD), and graft volume (GV) on cone-beam computed tomography 6 months post-MSA, clinical assessment of primary implant stability at implant placement and secondary stability 3 months postplacement, and histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of residual particles, percentage of connective tissue, and percentage of blood vessels from bone biopsy samples collected 6 months after MSA.

Covariates: Age, sex, periodontitis susceptibility, and smoking status were treated as covariates.

Analyses: The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for bivariate comparisons between 2 groups, and the Pearson or Spearman test was used to analyze correlations of variables within groups. A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The sample was composed of 10 patients with bilateral maxillary sinuses, 20 MSA regions, 8 (80%) males and 2 (20%) females with a mean age of 51.30 (9.06) year. The percentage of new bone was 19.48 ± 14.60 μm2 in the T-PRF group and 8.31 ± 5.47 μm2 in the DBBM group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .074). Radiographic measurements showed ToBH, GV, and BD values of 10.64 ± 3.96 mm, 989.89 ± 523.07 mm3, and 192.09 ± 127.90 hounsfield unit in the T-PRF group and 14.25 ± 1.65 mm, 1,519.39 ± 432.61 mm3, and 492.77 ± 117.35 hounsfield unit in the DBBM group, respectively. ToBH, GV, and BD values were statistically significant between the groups (P = .01 and P = .00). Primary and secondary implant stability in the T-PRF group were 71.11 ± 12.48 implant stability quotient (ISQ) and 68.03 ± 6.81 ISQ, respectively, compared with 67.94 ± 19.84 ISQ and 72.46 ± 11.21 ISQ in the DBBM group. The difference was not statistically significant between the groups (P = .41 and P = .33).

Conclusion and relevance: Although T-PRF demonstrated inferior radiographic outcomes compared with DBBM during the initial6-month healing phase, both techniques yielded comparable results regarding new bone formation and implant stability. Further research is warranted to explore the efficacy of different T-PRF applications in MSA. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05596084).

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: This monthly journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Practice-applicable articles help develop the methods used to handle dentoalveolar surgery, facial injuries and deformities, TMJ disorders, oral cancer, jaw reconstruction, anesthesia and analgesia. The journal also includes specifics on new instruments and diagnostic equipment and modern therapeutic drugs and devices. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is recommended for first or priority subscription by the Dental Section of the Medical Library Association.
期刊最新文献
Does Varying Platelet-Rich Fibrin Centri̇fugati̇on Protocols Enhance New Bone Formati̇on in Extracti̇on Site? Fluorescence Visualization-Guided Surgery Improves Local Control for Mandibular Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Do Postoperative Surgeon Phone Calls Improve Outcomes Following Mandibular Fracture Repair? Geographic Trends in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Match. What is the Minimal Perceptible Change for the Dimensional Alteration of Facial Structures in the Frontal View?
×
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