Literature DB >> 22530746

Bone-to-implant contact after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss and autogenous bone in different ratios in mini pigs.

Thomas Jensen1, Søren Schou, Hans Jørgen G Gundersen, Julie Lyng Forman, Hendrik Terheyden, Palle Holmstrup.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to test the hypotheses: (i) no differences in bone-to-implant contact formation, and (ii) no differences between the use of autogenous mandibular or iliac bone grafts, when autogenous bone, Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone, or Bio-Oss is used as graft for the maxillary sinus floor augmentation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bilateral sinus floor augmentation was performed in 40 mini pigs with: (A) 100% autogenous bone, (B) 75% autogenous bone and 25% Bio-Oss, (C) 50% autogenous bone and 50% Bio-Oss, (D) 25% autogenous bone and 75% Bio-Oss, or (E) 100% Bio-Oss. Autogenous bone was harvested from the iliac crest or the mandible and the graft composition was selected at random and placed concomitant with the implant placement. The animals were euthanized 12 weeks after surgery. Bone-to-implant contact was estimated by stereological methods and summarized as median percentage with 95% confidence interval (CI). Bone-to-implant contact formation was evaluated by fluorochrome labelling and assessed by median odds ratios (OR) with 95% (CI).
RESULTS: Median bone-to-implant contact was: (A) 42.9% (95% CI: 32.1-54.5%), (B) 37.8% (95% CI: 27.1-49.9%), (C) 43.9% (95% CI: 32.6-55.9%), (D) 30.2% (95% CI: 21.6-40.3%), and (E) 13.9% (95% CI: 11.4-16.9%). Bone-to-implant contact was significantly higher for A, B, C, D as compared to E (P < 0.0001). Bone-to-implant contact was not significantly influenced by the ratio of Bio-Oss and autogenous bone (P = 0.19) or the origin of the autogenous bone (P = 0.72). Fluorochrome labelling revealed extensive variation in bone-to-implant contact formation over time. The labelling at weeks 2-3 was significantly increased with A compared to E (OR = 8.1 CI: 5.0-13.1, P < 0.0001), whereas E showed a significantly increased labelling at weeks 8-9 compared to A (OR = 0.5 CI: 0.3-0.7, P = 0.0028).
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis of no differences in bone-to-implant contact between the various treatment modalities was rejected since the bone-to-implant contact was significantly increased with autogenous bone or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as compared to Bio-Oss. Early bone-to-implant contact formation was more advanced with autogenous bone. No differences between the use of mandibular or iliac bone grafts were observed since the bone-to-implant contact was not significantly influenced by the origin of the bone graft.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22530746     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02438.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  7 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation: a Review of Selected Treatment Modalities.

Authors:  Thomas Starch-Jensen; Janek Dalsgaard Jensen
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2017-09-30

Review 3.  Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome.

Authors:  Thomas Starch-Jensen; Daniel Deluiz; Niels Henrik Bruun; Eduardo Muniz Barretto Tinoco
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2020-11-30

4.  The new bone formation in human maxillary sinuses using two bone substitutes with different resorption types associated or not with autogenous bone graft: a comparative histomorphometric, immunohistochemical and randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Rodrigo Dos Santos Pereira; João Paulo Bonardi; Felippe Ricardo Frossard Ouverney; Annelise Backer Campos; Geraldo Luiz Griza; Roberta Okamoto; Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.698

5.  Patient's perception of recovery after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafts: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas Starch-Jensen; Marianne Ahmad; Niels Henrik Bruun; Jonas Peter Becktor
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-10-01

6.  Three-Dimensional Assessment of Volumetric Changes in Sinuses Augmented with Two Different Bone Substitutes.

Authors:  B Alper Gultekin; Oguz Borahan; Ali Sirali; Z Cuneyt Karabuda; Eitan Mijiritsky
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Clinical outcome of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinus via lateral approach: A 10-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Jinhee Ha; Jang-Ho Son; Iel-Yong Sung; Yeong-Cheol Cho; Jong-Ho Choi
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.080

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.