OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate histologically the outcome of a bioglass and autogenous bone (at 1 : 1 ratio) composite implantation for transalveolar sinus augmentation. METHODS: In 31 patients, during implant installation ca. 4 months after sinus augmentation, biopsies were harvested through the transalveolar osteotomy by means of a trephine bur and non-decalcified sections through the long axis of the cylinder were produced. After a strict selection process, taking into account the presurgical residual bone height and biopsy length, 8 and 15 biopsies representing the new tissues formed inside the sinus and the transalveolar osteotomy, respectively, qualified for analysis. The tissue fractions occupied by newly formed bone (mineralized tissue+bone marrow), soft connective tissue, residual biomaterial+empty spaces, and debris inside the sinus cavity or the transalveolar osteotomy were estimated. RESULTS:Bone and connective tissue fraction in the newly formed tissues inside the sinus cavity averaged 23.4 ± 13.2% and 54.1 ± 23.5%, respectively. Residual biomaterial, empty spaces, and debris averaged 1.9 ± 3.5%, 10.5 ± 6.3%, and 8.4 ± 14.5%, respectively. In the transalveolar osteotomy, bone and connective tissue fraction averaged 41.6 ± 14.3% and 46.1 ± 13%, respectively, while the amount of residual biomaterial, empty spaces, and debris was 2.8 ± 5%, 4.7 ± 1.9%, and 3.2 ± 2.6%, respectively. Statistically significant differences between the sinus cavity and the transalveolar osteotomy were found only for bone and empty spaces' values (P=0.02 and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION: Sinus augmentation with a bioglass and autogenous bone composite is compatible with bone formation that, in a short distance from the floor of the sinus, shows similar density as that reported previously for other commonly used bone substitutes. New bone fraction inside the transalveolar osteotomy was almost twice as much as in the sinus cavity, while the amount of residual biomaterial was much less than that inside the sinus.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate histologically the outcome of a bioglass and autogenous bone (at 1 : 1 ratio) composite implantation for transalveolar sinus augmentation. METHODS: In 31 patients, during implant installation ca. 4 months after sinus augmentation, biopsies were harvested through the transalveolar osteotomy by means of a trephine bur and non-decalcified sections through the long axis of the cylinder were produced. After a strict selection process, taking into account the presurgical residual bone height and biopsy length, 8 and 15 biopsies representing the new tissues formed inside the sinus and the transalveolar osteotomy, respectively, qualified for analysis. The tissue fractions occupied by newly formed bone (mineralized tissue+bone marrow), soft connective tissue, residual biomaterial+empty spaces, and debris inside the sinus cavity or the transalveolar osteotomy were estimated. RESULTS: Bone and connective tissue fraction in the newly formed tissues inside the sinus cavity averaged 23.4 ± 13.2% and 54.1 ± 23.5%, respectively. Residual biomaterial, empty spaces, and debris averaged 1.9 ± 3.5%, 10.5 ± 6.3%, and 8.4 ± 14.5%, respectively. In the transalveolar osteotomy, bone and connective tissue fraction averaged 41.6 ± 14.3% and 46.1 ± 13%, respectively, while the amount of residual biomaterial, empty spaces, and debris was 2.8 ± 5%, 4.7 ± 1.9%, and 3.2 ± 2.6%, respectively. Statistically significant differences between the sinus cavity and the transalveolar osteotomy were found only for bone and empty spaces' values (P=0.02 and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION: Sinus augmentation with a bioglass and autogenous bone composite is compatible with bone formation that, in a short distance from the floor of the sinus, shows similar density as that reported previously for other commonly used bone substitutes. New bone fraction inside the transalveolar osteotomy was almost twice as much as in the sinus cavity, while the amount of residual biomaterial was much less than that inside the sinus.
Authors: Andreas L Ioannou; Georgios A Kotsakis; Tarun Kumar; James E Hinrichs; Georgios Romanos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Tegan L Cheng; Ciara M Murphy; Roya Ravarian; Fariba Dehghani; David G Little; Aaron Schindeler Journal: J Tissue Eng Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 7.813