Pablo Galindo-Moreno1, Juan G de Buitrago1, Miguel Padial-Molina1, Juan Emilio Fernández-Barbero2, Javier Ata-Ali3, Francisco O Valle4. 1. Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 2. Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 3. Public Dental Health Service, Arnau de Vilanova Hospital & Department of Dentistry, European University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. Department of Pathology & Institute of Biopathology and Regenerative Medicine (IBIMER, CIBM), University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and histologic outcomes of two different grafting materials (allograft and xenograft) when combined with autogenous bone and covered with a collagen membrane for sinus augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A parallel case series of fourteen patients in need of a unilateral sinus augmentation was evaluated in this study. Seven patients received a graft composed by autologous cortical bone (ACB) and anorganic bovine bone in a ratio of 1:1; the other seven patients received ACB mixed with an allograft in the same ratio. Bone biopsies were obtained 6 months after sinus augmentation at the time of implant placement. Comparative histomorphometrical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical analyses were conducted and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: After 12 months of functional loading, all implants in both groups were clinical and radiographically successful. Histomorphometrically, although the initial bone formation was not significantly different between groups (new mineralized tissue: 41.03(12.87)% vs. 34.50(13.18)%, p = .620; allograft vs. xenograft groups), the graft resorbed faster in the allograft group (remnant graft particles: 9.83[7.77]% vs. 21.71[17.88]%; p = .026; allograft vs. xenograft groups). Non-mineralized tissue did not statistically differ either (49.00[14.32]% vs. 43.79[19.90]%; p = .710; allograft vs. xenograft groups). The histologic analyses revealed higher cellular content, four times more osteoid lines, and higher vascularization in the xenograft group. Musashi-1 (mesenchymal stromal cell marker) was also more intensively expressed in the xenograft group (p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Both composite grafts generate adequate substratum to receive dental implants after healing. Compared with the xenograft composite, allograft composite shows faster turnover and a quicker decrease in biological action after 6 months.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and histologic outcomes of two different grafting materials (allograft and xenograft) when combined with autogenous bone and covered with a collagen membrane for sinus augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A parallel case series of fourteen patients in need of a unilateral sinus augmentation was evaluated in this study. Seven patients received a graft composed by autologous cortical bone (ACB) and anorganic bovine bone in a ratio of 1:1; the other seven patients received ACB mixed with an allograft in the same ratio. Bone biopsies were obtained 6 months after sinus augmentation at the time of implant placement. Comparative histomorphometrical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical analyses were conducted and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: After 12 months of functional loading, all implants in both groups were clinical and radiographically successful. Histomorphometrically, although the initial bone formation was not significantly different between groups (new mineralized tissue: 41.03(12.87)% vs. 34.50(13.18)%, p = .620; allograft vs. xenograft groups), the graft resorbed faster in the allograft group (remnant graft particles: 9.83[7.77]% vs. 21.71[17.88]%; p = .026; allograft vs. xenograft groups). Non-mineralized tissue did not statistically differ either (49.00[14.32]% vs. 43.79[19.90]%; p = .710; allograft vs. xenograft groups). The histologic analyses revealed higher cellular content, four times more osteoid lines, and higher vascularization in the xenograft group. Musashi-1 (mesenchymal stromal cell marker) was also more intensively expressed in the xenograft group (p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Both composite grafts generate adequate substratum to receive dental implants after healing. Compared with the xenograft composite, allograft composite shows faster turnover and a quicker decrease in biological action after 6 months.
Authors: Deboleena Kanjilal; Christopher Grieg; Maya Deza Culbertson; Sheldon S Lin; Michael Vives; Joseph Benevenia; J Patrick O'Connor Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2021-05-26
Authors: Francisco O'Valle; Juan G de Buitrago; Pedro Hernández-Cortés; Miguel Padial-Molina; Vicente Crespo-Lora; Marien Cobo; David Aguilar; Pablo Galindo-Moreno Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Antonio Scarano; Felice Lorusso; Merla Arcangelo; Camillo D'Arcangelo; Renato Celletti; Pablo Santos de Oliveira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Giacomo Favero; Jose Viña-Almunia; Carmen Carda; José Javier Martín de Llano; Berta García-Mira; David Soto-Peñaloza; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; Daniele Botticelli Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Miguel Padial-Molina; Vicente Crespo-Lora; Clara Candido-Corral; Nati Martin-Morales; Dario Abril-Garcia; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Pedro Hernandez-Cortes; Francisco O'Valle Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Miguel Padial-Molina; Juan G de Buitrago; Raquel Sainz-Urruela; Dario Abril-Garcia; Per Anderson; Francisco O'Valle; Pablo Galindo-Moreno Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 5.923