Literature DB >> 33331393

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.

Rodrigo Dos Santos Pereira1, João Paulo Bonardi2, Felippe Ricardo Frossard Ouverney3, Annelise Backer Campos3, Geraldo Luiz Griza4, Roberta Okamoto2, Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the new bone and connective tissue formation and the biomaterial remaining after maxillary sinus bone augmentation using 5 different bone substitutes. The osteocalcin immunolabeling was performed to demonstrate their calcification and the possibility of receiving dental implants.
METHODOLOGY: 40 patients underwent maxillary sinus bone augmentation and were divided in 5 groups: Group 1 with 8 maxillary sinuses were grafted with autogenous bone graft (AB); Group 2 with 8 maxillary sinuses grafted with bioactive glass (BG); Group 3 with 8 maxillary sinuses grafted with bioactive glass added to autogenous bone graft (BG + AB) 1:1; Group 4 with 8 maxillary sinuses grafted with Bio-Oss (BO) and Group 5 with 8 maxillary sinuses grafted with Bio-Oss added to autogenous bone graft (BO + AB) 1:1.
RESULTS: In group AB, 37.8% of bone was formed in the pristine bone region, 38.1% in the intermediate and 44.5% in the apical region. In group BG, 43.6% was formed in the pristine bone, 37% in the intermediate and 49.3% in the apical region. In group BG + AB 1:1, 39.0% was formed in the pristine bone region, 34.8% in the intermediate and 36.8% in apical region. In group BO, 33.4% was formed in the pristine bone, 32.5% in the intermediate and 34.3% in the apical region. In group BO + AB 1:1, 32.8% was formed in the pristine bone, 36.1% in intermediate and 27.8% in the apical regions. The immunolabeling for osteocalcin showed an intensive staining for all groups, which could demonstrate the calcification of the bone formed.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that the groups evaluated formed a suitable lamellar bone in the maxillary sinus reconstruction after six months of bone healing, thus being indicated to receive dental implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33331393      PMCID: PMC7799149          DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0568

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci        ISSN: 1678-7757            Impact factor:   2.698


  32 in total

Review 1.  Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Jensen; Søren Schou; Andreas Stavropoulos; Hendrik Terheyden; Palle Holmstrup
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 5.977

2.  Grafting of the maxillary sinus with intraorally harvested autogenous bone prior to implant placement.

Authors:  R M Wood; D L Moore
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Use of autogenous bone and beta-tricalcium phosphate in maxillary sinus lifting: histomorphometric study and immunohistochemical assessment of RUNX2 and VEGF.

Authors:  R S Pereira; L F Gorla; F B J D Boos; R Okamoto; I R Garcia Júnior; E Hochuli-Vieira
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.789

4.  Randomized Clinical Trial of Maxillary Sinus Grafting using Deproteinized Porcine and Bovine Bone Mineral.

Authors:  Jung-Seok Lee; Hyun-Ki Shin; Jeong-Ho Yun; Kyoo-Sung Cho
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.932

5.  Prospective evaluation of morbidity in patients who underwent autogenous bone-graft harvesting from the mandibular symphysis and retromolar regions.

Authors:  Rodrigo Santos Pereira; Maicon D Pavelski; Geraldo L Griza; Fernanda B J D Boos; Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 3.932

6.  Augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor with particulated mandible: a histologic and histomorphometric study.

Authors:  S Lundgren; P Moy; C Johansson; H Nilsson
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Histomorphometric Evaluation of Two Different Bone Substitutes in Sinus Augmentation Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Humans.

Authors:  Ruggero Rodriguez y Baena; Roberta Pastorino; Enrico Felice Gherlone; Letizia Perillo; Saturnino Marco Lupi; Alessandra Lucchese
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  High concentrations of bioactive glass material (BioGran) vs. autogenous bone for sinus floor elevation.

Authors:  Ette S Tadjoedin; Gert L de Lange; D M Lyaruu; Luit Kuiper; Elisabeth H Burger
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.977

9.  Histologic and elemental microanalytical study of anorganic bovine bone substitution following sinus floor augmentation in humans.

Authors:  Tonino Traini; Marco Degidi; Rachel Sammons; Paul Stanley; Adriano Piattelli
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.993

10.  Ridge preservation with the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral.

Authors:  Jan Lindhe; Denis Cecchinato; Mauro Donati; Cristiano Tomasi; Birgitta Liljenberg
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 5.977

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.