Literature DB >> 12608669

Histologic findings in sinus augmentation with autogenous bone chips versus a bovine bone substitute.

Karl Andreas Schlegel1, Gabriele Fichtner, Stefan Schultze-Mosgau, Jörg Wiltfang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare a bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss) to autogenous bone with respect to its value as a material for sinus augmentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 10 beagle dogs 12 months of age, the 3 maxillary premolars were extracted on both sides. Six weeks later, 2 cavities of predefined size were produced in the region of the nasal cavity. The antral window was 25 mm long and had a vertical extension of 7 mm. Two Frialit-2 implants (3 x 8 mm) were placed in each bone defect (n = 20). Every implant was primarily stable because of fixation in native bone. In each maxilla, 1 bone defect was filled with autogenous bone harvested from the mandible and 1 was filled with Bio-Oss (material selected at random). The animals were sacrificed at 90 and 180 days, and histologic specimens were examined and the results subjected to statistical analysis by the Wilcoxon test for paired observations.
RESULTS: No healing problems were observed. Histologically, after 90 days the volume of the augmentation showed a reduction of 14.6 +/- 4.4% within the Bio-Oss group and 3.8 +/- 2.5% in the group with autogenous bone. Bone-implant contact of 52.16 +/- 13.15% in the Bio-Oss group and 60.21 +/- 11.46% in the autogenous bone group was observed. At 180 days, the Bio-Oss group showed bony ingrowth of the substitute, whereas in the autogenous group a differentiation from original bone could no longer be made. The volume reduction was 16.5 +/- 8.67% in the Bio-Oss group and 39.8 +/- 16.14% in the autogenous group. Bone-implant contact of 63.43 +/- 19.56% in the Bio-Oss group and 42.22 +/- 12.80% in the autogenous bone group was measured. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: The results indicated that because of the nonresorptive properties of the bone substitute Bio-Oss, regeneration of the defects is achievable. It was demonstrated that the bone substitute seemed to behave as a permanent implant. The volume of the area augmented by autogenous bone decreased over the observation period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12608669

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  31 in total

1.  Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with Autologous and Heterologous Bone Graft: A Clinical and Radiographic Report of Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement.

Authors:  Mario Santagata; Umberto Tozzi; Gianpaolo Tartaro; Vincenzo Santillo; Corrado Giovanni; Ettore Lamart; Angelo Itro; Giuseppe Colella; Salvatore D'Amato
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-08-30

2.  The influence of bone substitute materials on the bone volume after maxillary sinus augmentation: a microcomputerized tomography study.

Authors:  Sebastian Kühl; Christoph Brochhausen; Hermann Götz; Andreas Filippi; Michael Payer; Bernd d'Hoedt; Matthias Kreisler
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  [Bone substitutes used for sinus lift].

Authors:  T Kamm; S Kamm; W Heppt
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Three-dimensional volumetric changes of 5 different bone grafts in human maxillary sinuses reconstruction: a randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Juliana Dreyer Menezes; Rodrigo Dos Santos Pereira; Anderson Maikon de Souza Santos; Natália Barbosa de Siqueira; Fernanda Brasil Daura Jorge Boos-Lima; Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2021-03-13

5.  Horizontal and vertical reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxillary jaw using subantral augmentation and a novel tenting technique with bone from the lateral buccal wall.

Authors:  Antoine Berberi; Nabih Nader; Ziad Noujeim; Alessandro Scardina; Angelo Leone; Ziad Salameh
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2014-06-28

Review 6.  Bone augmentation with TiMesh. autologous bone versus autologous bone and bone substitutes. A systematic review.

Authors:  Fabrizio Carini; Salvatore Longoni; Ernesto Amosso; Jacopo Paleari; Stefania Carini; Gianluca Porcaro
Journal:  Ann Stomatol (Roma)       Date:  2014-10-25

7.  Compositional and histological comparison of carbonate apatite fabricated by dissolution-precipitation reaction and Bio-Oss®.

Authors:  Kenji Fujisawa; Kazuya Akita; Naoyuki Fukuda; Kumiko Kamada; Takaharu Kudoh; Go Ohe; Takamitsu Mano; Kanji Tsuru; Kunio Ishikawa; Youji Miyamoto
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2018-07-21       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  Comparative, Histological and Histomorphometric Analysis of Three Anorganic Bovine Xenogenous Bone Substitutes: Bio-Oss, Bone-Fill and Gen-Ox Anorganic.

Authors:  Rafael Manfro; Fabiano Silva Fonseca; Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi; Wilson Roberto Sendyk
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-08-02

9.  Surface- and nonsurface-dependent in vitro effects of bone substitutes on cell viability.

Authors:  M Herten; D Rothamel; F Schwarz; K Friesen; G Koegler; J Becker
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 10.  The effect of five proteins on stem cells used for osteoblast differentiation and proliferation: a current review of the literature.

Authors:  P Chatakun; R Núñez-Toldrà; E J Díaz López; C Gil-Recio; E Martínez-Sarrà; F Hernández-Alfaro; E Ferrés-Padró; L Giner-Tarrida; M Atari
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 9.261

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.