Ji-Yeong Lee1, Sangyup Kim1, Seung-Yun Shin2,3, Jong-Hyuk Chung2,3, Yeek Herr4,5, Hyun-Chang Lim6,7. 1. Department of Periodontology, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae‑ro, Dongdaemun‑gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Periodontal-Implant Clinical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Periodontology, Dental Hospital, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, 23 Kyungheedae‑ro, Dongdaemun‑gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Periodontal-Implant Clinical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. yherr@khu.ac.kr. 5. Department of Periodontology, Dental Hospital, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, 23 Kyungheedae‑ro, Dongdaemun‑gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. yherr@khu.ac.kr. 6. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Periodontal-Implant Clinical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. Hyun-Chang.Lim@khu.ac.kr. 7. Department of Periodontology, Dental Hospital, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, 23 Kyungheedae‑ro, Dongdaemun‑gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea. Hyun-Chang.Lim@khu.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of hydraulic pressure-assisted sinus augmentation (SA) in a rabbit sinus model in terms of radiographical and histological healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral SA was performed in 12 rabbits. Each sinus was randomly assigned to either a hydraulic pressure-assisted SA (test) or a conventional SA (control) group. Healing periods of 2 and 4 weeks were applied (n = 6 for each week). Healing pattern including newly formed bone (NB) and residual bone substitute material (RM) was analyzed with microcomputed tomographically, histologically, and histomorphometrically. RESULTS: No sinus membrane perforation was detected in either group. In the microcomputed tomographic analysis, the test group exhibited higher apico-coronal spread of RM compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Particularly, the test group exhibited several masses of NB out of the cluster of RM. Histologically, the test group showed an elongated shape of the augmented space, whereas the control group generally presented a dome shape. Histomorphometrically, the total augmented area and the area of NB (1.32 ± 0.56 vs. 0.84 ± 0.40 mm2 at 2 weeks, 2.24 ± 1.09 vs. 2.22 ± 0.85 mm2 at 4 weeks) were not significantly different between the test and the control groups at both healing periods (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hydraulic pressure-assisted SA led to new bone formation in the distant areas from the bony access hole, but similar histological healing pattern to conventional SA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hydraulic pressure-assisted SA is a promising option for treating pneumatized posterior maxilla.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of hydraulic pressure-assisted sinus augmentation (SA) in a rabbit sinus model in terms of radiographical and histological healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral SA was performed in 12 rabbits. Each sinus was randomly assigned to either a hydraulic pressure-assisted SA (test) or a conventional SA (control) group. Healing periods of 2 and 4 weeks were applied (n = 6 for each week). Healing pattern including newly formed bone (NB) and residual bone substitute material (RM) was analyzed with microcomputed tomographically, histologically, and histomorphometrically. RESULTS: No sinus membrane perforation was detected in either group. In the microcomputed tomographic analysis, the test group exhibited higher apico-coronal spread of RM compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Particularly, the test group exhibited several masses of NB out of the cluster of RM. Histologically, the test group showed an elongated shape of the augmented space, whereas the control group generally presented a dome shape. Histomorphometrically, the total augmented area and the area of NB (1.32 ± 0.56 vs. 0.84 ± 0.40 mm2 at 2 weeks, 2.24 ± 1.09 vs. 2.22 ± 0.85 mm2 at 4 weeks) were not significantly different between the test and the control groups at both healing periods (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hydraulic pressure-assisted SA led to new bone formation in the distant areas from the bony access hole, but similar histological healing pattern to conventional SA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hydraulic pressure-assisted SA is a promising option for treating pneumatized posterior maxilla.
Authors: P S Rosen; R Summers; J R Mellado; L M Salkin; R H Shanaman; M H Marks; P A Fugazzotto Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Bjarni E Pjetursson; Claude Rast; Urs Brägger; Kurt Schmidlin; Marcel Zwahlen; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 5.977