Literature DB >> 32994871

Effect of amount of biomaterial used for maxillary sinus lift on volume maintenance of grafts.

Luciene-Dornas Mendes1, Roberta-Paula-Colen Bustamante2, Bruno-César-Ladeira Vidigal1, Mario-Nazareno Favato1, Flávio-Ricardo Manzi3, Mauricio-Greco Cosso3, Elton-Gonçalves Zenóbio3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regardless of the kind of biomaterial used for the graft, it is clear that, over time, the graft undergoes dimensional changes that could influence the final bone volume obtained, which could alter the stability of the installed implants. The aim of the present study was to compared and correlated the graft behavior with the amount (in grams) of xenogeneic and alloplastic biomaterials used in grafts for maxillary sinus lift.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 148 CBCT images of 74 grafts from 68 maxillary sinuses lift patients in a university, post-graduate clinic. The weights of biomaterials, categorized in intervals according to amount used, were correlated with the graft volumes at V1 (10 days) and V2 (180 days). Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the possible bias effect of weight on graft maintenance.
RESULTS: Mean weights of biomaterials used were: Bio-Oss Small® (1.58g); Bio-Oss Large® (1.35g); Endobon® (0.72g); BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim® (0.96g); Cerasorb® (1.13g) and Osteogen® (2.70g). No significant differences (p>0.05). Were found for the influence of these mean amounts in graft maintenance: Bio-Oss Small® (18); Bio-Oss Large® (10); Endobon® (17); BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim® (10); Cerasorb® (11); and Osteogen® (08) at V1 and V2. However, when biomaterials were categorized by intervals, all Cerasorb® interval groups showed statistically significant differences (p<0.001) in graft volume at V2.
CONCLUSIONS: The amounts of the biomaterials used could influence the final volume; depending on the biomaterial characteristics. Implant installation was possible with all studied grafts, although graft volume shrinkage should be considered when selecting biomaterial for sinus lift. Key words:Biocompatible materials; cone beam computed tomography; maxillary sinus; hydroxyapatites. Copyright:
© 2020 Medicina Oral S.L.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32994871      PMCID: PMC7511044          DOI: 10.4317/jced.56315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent        ISSN: 1989-5488


  30 in total

1.  Antral computerized tomography pre-operative evaluation: relationship between mucosal thickening and maxillary sinus function.

Authors:  Guy Carmeli; Zvi Artzi; Avital Kozlovsky; Yoram Segev; Roee Landsberg
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 2.  A literature review on biomaterials in sinus augmentation procedures.

Authors:  Hilde Browaeys; Peter Bouvry; Hugo De Bruyn
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.932

Review 3.  A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation.

Authors:  Bjarni E Pjetursson; Wah Ching Tan; Marcel Zwahlen; Niklaus P Lang
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 8.728

4.  Three-dimensional volumetric analysis after sinus grafts.

Authors:  Eun-Sik Kim; Seong-Yong Moon; Su-Gwan Kim; Hyun-Chun Park; Ji-Su Oh
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.454

5.  Assessment of Dental Implant Stability in Areas Previously Submitted to Maxillary Sinus Elevation.

Authors:  Karine Câmara Silva; Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio; Paulo Eduardo Alencar Souza; Rodrigo Villamarim Soares; Maurício Greco Cosso; Martinho Campolina Rebello Horta
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Evaluation of Volumetric Changes of Augmented Maxillary Sinus With Different Bone Grafting Biomaterials.

Authors:  B Alper Gultekin; Erol Cansiz; Oguz Borahan; Carlo Mangano; Roni Kolerman; Eitan Mijiritsky; Serdar Yalcin
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  Histologic and histometric evaluation of bovine cancellous bone and beta-tricalcium phosphate 45 months after grafting in maxillary sinus.

Authors:  Farokh Khatiblou
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 8.  Volume changes of maxillary sinus augmentations over time: a systematic review.

Authors:  Siddharth Shanbhag; Vivek Shanbhag; Andreas Stavropoulos
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  A clinical study of the outcomes and complications associated with maxillary sinus augmentation.

Authors:  Antonio Barone; Stefano Santini; Ludovico Sbordone; Roberto Crespi; Ugo Covani
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

10.  Impact of human maxillary sinus volume on grafts dimensional changes used in maxillary sinus augmentation: a multislice tomographic study.

Authors:  Mário N Favato; Bruno C L Vidigal; Maurício G Cosso; Flávio R Manzi; Jamil A Shibli; Elton G Zenóbio
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 5.977

View more
  2 in total

1.  Histomorphometric Evaluation of Bone-Guided Regeneration in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Using Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Composite Biomaterial: A Case Report.

Authors:  Saulo Henrique Salviano; João Carlos Amorim Lopes; Igor da Silva Brum; Lúcio Frigo; Mario José Dos Santos; Sílvio Roberto Consonni; Jorge José de Carvalho
Journal:  Int Med Case Rep J       Date:  2021-09-29

2.  Application Effect of External and Internal Elevation of Maxillary Sinus in Implant Restoration of Posterior Maxilla.

Authors:  Xuan Deng; Rujie Shi; Jia Zhan; Fang Yang
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 1.621

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.