Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1‐Year Multicenter, Split‐Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1111/clr.14431

Anouck Jue, Justin Pijpe, Eppo Wolvius, Nadja Naenni, Franz J. Strauss, Brend Jonker

{"title":"Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1‐Year Multicenter, Split‐Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Anouck Jue, Justin Pijpe, Eppo Wolvius, Nadja Naenni, Franz J. Strauss, Brend Jonker","doi":"10.1111/clr.14431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo compare autogenous bone (AB) harvested from the mandibular ramus or a mixture of bovine bone mineral (BBM) with 25% locally harvested autogenous bone chips from the maxilla for maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA).Material and MethodsPatients requiring bilateral MSFA and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Maxillary sinuses were randomly assigned (1:1) to one of the two groups: MSFA + AB (AB group) or MSFA + AB + BBM (BBM group). AB was harvested from the mandible (AB group) or locally during MSFA (BBM group). Implants were placed after 4–6 months of healing and loaded 4–6 months later. Patients were examined at baseline (1 month post‐loading) and 12 months post‐loading. Outcome measures included clinician‐ and patient‐reported outcomes.ResultsFifty patients with 198 implants were included (AB = 99, BBM = 99). Twelve implants failed before loading (AB = 6, BBM = 6), and three failed post‐loading (AB = 2, BBM = 1). Implant survival was 92.9% (AB group) and 93.9% (BBM group) at 12 months post‐loading, with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.28–2.54; p = 0.770). Implant success was 98.8% (AB group) and 97.6% (BBM group), with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.03–8.05; p = 0.620). No significant differences in marginal bone loss or clinical parameters were found between groups (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction significantly improved at follow‐ups compared to screening (p = 0.005).ConclusionImplants placed after MSFA with AB or BBM showed comparable results. This indicates that MSFA can be successfully performed without requiring AB from an additional donor site, potentially reducing patient morbidity.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register with number NL59578.078.16 on 09‐05‐2017. The study start date was on 21‐08‐2017","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14431","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare autogenous bone (AB) harvested from the mandibular ramus or a mixture of bovine bone mineral (BBM) with 25% locally harvested autogenous bone chips from the maxilla for maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA).Material and MethodsPatients requiring bilateral MSFA and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Maxillary sinuses were randomly assigned (1:1) to one of the two groups: MSFA + AB (AB group) or MSFA + AB + BBM (BBM group). AB was harvested from the mandible (AB group) or locally during MSFA (BBM group). Implants were placed after 4–6 months of healing and loaded 4–6 months later. Patients were examined at baseline (1 month post‐loading) and 12 months post‐loading. Outcome measures included clinician‐ and patient‐reported outcomes.ResultsFifty patients with 198 implants were included (AB = 99, BBM = 99). Twelve implants failed before loading (AB = 6, BBM = 6), and three failed post‐loading (AB = 2, BBM = 1). Implant survival was 92.9% (AB group) and 93.9% (BBM group) at 12 months post‐loading, with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.28–2.54; p = 0.770). Implant success was 98.8% (AB group) and 97.6% (BBM group), with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.03–8.05; p = 0.620). No significant differences in marginal bone loss or clinical parameters were found between groups (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction significantly improved at follow‐ups compared to screening (p = 0.005).ConclusionImplants placed after MSFA with AB or BBM showed comparable results. This indicates that MSFA can be successfully performed without requiring AB from an additional donor site, potentially reducing patient morbidity.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register with number NL59578.078.16 on 09‐05‐2017. The study start date was on 21‐08‐2017

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

自体骨与牛骨矿物质混合 25% 自体骨的上颌窦底增量术：一项为期 1 年的多中心、分口、随机对照试验

材料和方法本研究招募了需要双侧 MSFA 和植入种植体的患者。上颌窦被随机分配（1:1）到两组中的一组：MSFA + AB（AB 组）或 MSFA + AB + BBM（BBM 组）。AB取自下颌骨（AB组）或在MSFA过程中局部取材（BBM组）。种植体在愈合 4-6 个月后植入，4-6 个月后装入。患者在基线（植入后 1 个月）和植入后 12 个月接受检查。结果包括临床医生和患者报告的结果。结果50例患者共植入198颗种植体（AB=99颗，BBM=99颗）。12颗种植体在加载前失败（AB=6颗，BBM=6颗），3颗在加载后失败（AB=2颗，BBM=1颗）。植入后 12 个月，种植体存活率为 92.9%（AB 组）和 93.9%（BBM 组），组间无显著差异（HR，0.85；95% CI，0.28-2.54；P = 0.770）。种植成功率为 98.8%（AB 组）和 97.6%（BBM 组），组间无明显差异（HR，0.49；95% CI，0.03-8.05；p = 0.620）。各组间边缘骨质流失或临床参数无明显差异（p > 0.05）。与筛查相比，随访时患者的满意度明显提高（p = 0.005）。这表明 MSFA 无需从额外的供体部位进行 AB 即可成功实施，从而可能降低患者的发病率。试验注册本研究于 2017 年 5 月 9 日在荷兰试验注册中心注册，注册号为 NL59578.078.16。研究开始日期为 2017 年 8 月 21 日。

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

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.