nach oben

Erschienen in:

30.04.2016 | Original Article

Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-controlled, clinical multicenter study

verfasst von: Tim Fienitz, Ofer Moses, Christoph Klemm, Arndt Happe, Daniel Ferrari, Matthias Kreppel, Zeev Ormianer, Moti Gal, Daniel Rothamel

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.

Ali SA, Karthigeyan S, Deivanai M, Kumar A (2014) Implant rehabilitation for atrophic maxilla: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14(3):196–207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Barbeck M, Udeabor S, Lorenz J, Schlee M, Grosse Holthaus M, Raetscho N, Choukroun J, Sader R, Kirkpatrick CJ and Ghanaati S (2014) High-temperature sintering of xenogeneic bone substitutes leads to increased multinucleated giant cell formation: In vivo and preliminary clinical results. J Oral Implantol 41(5):e212–e222

Beretta M, Cicciu M, Bassi G, Rancitelli D, Poli P, Grossi GB and Maiorana C (2015) A retrospective evaluation of 192 implants placed in augmented bone: a six-year mean follow-up study. J Oral Implantol 41(6):669–674

Butz SJ, Huys LW (2005) Long-term success of sinus augmentation using a synthetic alloplast: a 20 patients, 7 years clinical report. Implant Dent 14(1):36–42CrossRefPubMed

Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M (2006) Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(Suppl 2):136–159CrossRefPubMed

Gomes KU, Carlini JL, Biron C, Rapoport A, Dedivitis RA (2008) Use of allogeneic bone graft in maxillary reconstruction for installation of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(11):2335–2338CrossRefPubMed

Jensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P (2012) Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft in animals: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41(1):114–120CrossRefPubMed

Jung RE, Fenner N, Hammerle CH, Zitzmann NU (2013) Long-term outcome of implants placed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes after 12-14 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 24(10):1065–1073CrossRefPubMed

Klein MO, Kammerer PW, Gotz H, Duschner H, Wagner W (2013) Long-term bony integration and resorption kinetics of a xenogeneic bone substitute after sinus floor augmentation: histomorphometric analyses of human biopsy specimens. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33(4):e101–e110CrossRefPubMed

10.

McAllister BS, Haghighat K (2007) Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol 78(3):377–396CrossRefPubMed

11.

Moses O, Nemcovsky CE, Langer Y, Tal H (2007) Severely resorbed mandible treated with iliac crest autogenous bone graft and dental implants: 17-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(6):1017–1021PubMed

12.

Murugan R, Panduranga Rao K, Sampath Kumar TS (2003) Heat-deproteinated xenogeneic bone from slaughterhouse waste: physico-chemical properties. Bull Mater Sci 26(5):523–528

13.

Nedir R, Nurdin N, Khoury P and Bischof M (2015) Short Implants Placed with or without Grafting in Atrophic Sinuses: The 3-Year Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18(1):10–18

14.

Nkenke E, Radespiel-Troger M, Wiltfang J, Schultze-Mosgau S, Winkler G, Neukam FW (2002) Morbidity of harvesting of retromolar bone grafts: a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 13(5):514–521CrossRefPubMed

15.

Nkenke E, Schultze-Mosgau S, Radespiel-Troger M, Kloss F, Neukam FW (2001) Morbidity of harvesting of chin grafts: a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 12(5):495–502CrossRefPubMed

16.

Panagiotou D, Ozkan Karaca E, Dirikan Ipci S, Cakar G, Olgac V and Yilmaz S (2015) “Comparison of two different xenografts in bilateral sinus augmentation: Radiographic and histologic findings.” Quintessence Int 46(7):611–619

17.

Pinchasov G, Juodzbalys G (2014) Graft-free sinus augmentation procedure: a literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 5(1):e1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Vissink A, Reintsema H (1996) Augmentation of localized defects of the anterior maxillary ridge with autogenous bone before insertion of implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54(10):1180–1185, discussion 1185-1186CrossRefPubMed

19.

Riachi F, Naaman N, Tabarani C, Aboelsaad N, Aboushelib MN, Berberi A, Salameh Z (2012) Influence of material properties on rate of resorption of two bone graft materials after sinus lift using radiographic assessment. Int J Dent 2012:737262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Shanbhag S, Shanbhag V, Stavropoulos A (2014) Volume changes of maxillary sinus augmentations over time: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(4):881–892CrossRefPubMed

21.

Smiler DG, Johnson PW, Lozada JL, Misch C, Rosenlicht JL, Tatum OH Jr, Wagner JR (1992) Sinus lift grafts and endosseous implants. Treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla. Dent Clin North Am 36(1):151–186, discussion 187-158PubMed

22.

Tatum OH Jr, Lebowitz MS, Tatum CA, Borgner RA (1993) Sinus augmentation. Rationale, development, long-term results. N Y State Dent J 59(5):43–48PubMed

Titel: Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-controlled, clinical multicenter study
verfasst von: Tim Fienitz
Ofer Moses
Christoph Klemm
Arndt Happe
Daniel Ferrari
Matthias Kreppel
Zeev Ormianer
Moti Gal
Daniel Rothamel
Publikationsdatum: 30.04.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1829-9

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Histological and radiological evaluation of sintered and non-sintered deproteinized bovine bone substitute materials in sinus augmentation procedures. A prospective, randomized-controlled, clinical multicenter study