Tim Fienitz1, Ofer Moses2, Christoph Klemm1, Arndt Happe3, Daniel Ferrari4, Matthias Kreppel1, Zeev Ormianer5, Moti Gal6, Daniel Rothamel7. 1. Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Private Practice, Muenster, Germany. 4. Private Practice, Duesseldorf, Germany. 5. Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 6. Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan, Ramat Gan, Israel. 7. Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50931, Cologne, Germany. daniel.rothamel@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to histologically and radiologically compare a sintered and a non-sintered bovine bone substitute material in sinus augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-three patients were included in the clinically controlled randomized multicentre study resulting in a total of 44 treated sinuses. After lateral approach, sinuses were filled with either a sintered (SBM, Alpha Bio's Graft®) or a non-sintered (NSBM, Bio Oss®) deproteinized bovine bone substitute material. The augmentation sites were radiologically assessed before and immediately after the augmentation procedure as well as prior to implant placement. Bone trephine biopsies for histological analysis were harvested 6 months after augmentation whilst preparing the osteotomies for implant placement. RESULTS:Healing was uneventful in all patients. After 6 months, radiological evaluation of 43 sinuses revealed a residual augmentation height of 94.65 % (±2.74) for SBM and 95.76 % (±2.15) for NSBM. One patient left the study for personal reasons. Histological analysis revealed a percentage of new bone of 29.71 % (±13.67) for SBM and 30.57 % (±16.07) for NSBM. Residual bone substitute material averaged at 40.68 % (±16.32) for SBM compared to 43.43 % (±19.07) for NSBM. All differences between the groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05, Student's t test). CONCLUSION: Both xenogeneic bone substitute materials showed comparable results regarding new bone formation and radiological height changes in external sinus grafting procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both bone substitute materials allow for a predictable new bone formation following sinus augmentation procedures.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to histologically and radiologically compare a sintered and a non-sintered bovine bone substitute material in sinus augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients were included in the clinically controlled randomized multicentre study resulting in a total of 44 treated sinuses. After lateral approach, sinuses were filled with either a sintered (SBM, Alpha Bio's Graft®) or a non-sintered (NSBM, Bio Oss®) deproteinized bovine bone substitute material. The augmentation sites were radiologically assessed before and immediately after the augmentation procedure as well as prior to implant placement. Bone trephine biopsies for histological analysis were harvested 6 months after augmentation whilst preparing the osteotomies for implant placement. RESULTS: Healing was uneventful in all patients. After 6 months, radiological evaluation of 43 sinuses revealed a residual augmentation height of 94.65 % (±2.74) for SBM and 95.76 % (±2.15) for NSBM. One patient left the study for personal reasons. Histological analysis revealed a percentage of new bone of 29.71 % (±13.67) for SBM and 30.57 % (±16.07) for NSBM. Residual bone substitute material averaged at 40.68 % (±16.32) for SBM compared to 43.43 % (±19.07) for NSBM. All differences between the groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05, Student's t test). CONCLUSION: Both xenogeneic bone substitute materials showed comparable results regarding new bone formation and radiological height changes in external sinus grafting procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both bone substitute materials allow for a predictable new bone formation following sinus augmentation procedures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Augmentation; Bone substitute; Implantology; Sintering; Sinuslift; Xenograft
Authors: Mike Barbeck; Samuel Udeabor; Jonas Lorenz; Markus Schlee; Marzellus Grosse Holthaus; Nina Raetscho; Joseph Choukroun; Robert Sader; C James Kirkpatrick; Shahram Ghanaati Journal: J Oral Implantol Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Lara Schorn; Tim Fienitz; Maximilian F Gerstenberg; Anja Sterner-Kock; Alexandra C Maul; Julian Lommen; Henrik Holtmann; Daniel Rothamel Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Eleni Kapogianni; Mike Barbeck; Tim Fienitz; Daniel Rothamel; Ole Jung; Aylin Arslan; Lennart Kuhnel; Xin Xiong; Rumen Krastev; Reinhard E. Friedrich; Reinhard Schnettler Journal: In Vivo Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: María Piedad Ramírez Fernández; Patricia Mazón; Sergio A Gehrke; Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado; Piedad N De Aza Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: María Piedad Ramírez Fernández; Sergio A Gehrke; Carlos Pérez Albacete Martinez; Jose L Calvo Guirado; Piedad N de Aza Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Marco Cicciù; Gabriele Cervino; Alan Scott Herford; Fausto Famà; Ennio Bramanti; Luca Fiorillo; Floriana Lauritano; Sergio Sambataro; Giuseppe Troiano; Luigi Laino Journal: Mar Drugs Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 5.118