The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2573-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To perform a within-subject comparison of the cortical bone micro-architecture of the maxillary sinus floor (MSF) to that of the buccal aspect of the anterior and posterior maxilla.
Micro-CT scans of the buccal aspect of the anterior and posterior maxilla and of the MSF in 14 human anatomical specimens were recorded. Within-subject comparisons were performed for cortical thickness (Ct.Th) and porosity (Ct.Po), average pore volume (AvgPo.V), and pore density (Po.Dn).
The MSF presented the lowest and the anterior maxilla the highest Ct.Th, while Ct.Po was significantly higher at the MSF compared to the posterior maxilla (p = 0.021). No relevant differences were recorded for AvgPo.V and Po.Dn among regions (p > 0.067). Further, an increased Ct.Th at the MSF was significantly associated with a lower Po.Dn, while a higher Ct.Th and an increased AvgPo.V in the anterior maxilla were associated with a higher Ct.Th and an increased AvgPo.V, respectively, in the posterior maxilla and MSF. Finally, within each region, the AvgPo.V was associated positively with Ct.Po and negatively with Po.Dn.
The cortical bone of the MSF is slightly less thick and slightly more porous compared to the cortical bone at the buccal aspect of the anterior and posterior maxilla.
During lateral and vertical bone augmentation procedures, the cortical recipient bone is perforated several times to open the bone marrow compartment to facilitate provision of osteoinductive cells and molecules in the augmented space. Whether it is meaningful to approach the MSF in a similar way during MSF augmentation procedures or whether the slightly more porous structure of the MSF observed herein reduces the cortical barrier function already sufficiently has to be assessed in future clinical trials.
Atwood DA (1963) Postextraction changes in the adult mandible as illustrated by microradiographs of midsagittal sections and serial cephalometric roentgenograms. J Prosthet Dent 13:810–824 CrossRef
Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 35:216–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x CrossRefPubMed
Gruber R (2012) Biologic aspects of sinus augmentation. In: The percrestal sinus lift – from illusion to reality, ed. Quintessenze Publishing Co. Ltd., London, pp 20–43
Meloni SM, Jovanovic SA, Urban I, Canullo L, Pisano M, Tallarico M (2016) Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native collagen membrane and 1:1 ratio of particulated xenograft and autologous bone: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12429 CrossRefPubMed
Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Dias Pereira LA, Marcantonio E, Wenzel A (2013) Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:167–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02324.x CrossRefPubMed
Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Coletti FL, Pereira LA, Marcantonio E, Wenzel A (2015) Remodeling of cortical and corticocancellous fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts--a radiographic and histomorphometric comparison to autologous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:747–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12343 CrossRefPubMed
Cha JK, Kim CS, Choi SH, Cho KS, Chai JK, Jung UW (2012) The influence of perforating the autogenous block bone and the recipient bed in dogs. Part II: histologic analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:987–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02259.x CrossRefPubMed
Nishimura I, Shimizu Y, Ooya K (2004) Effects of cortical bone perforation on experimental guided bone regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:293–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01001.x CrossRefPubMed
Oh KC, Cha JK, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW (2011) The influence of perforating the autogenous block bone and the recipient bed in dogs. Part I: a radiographic analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1298–1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02110.x CrossRefPubMed
Danesh-Sani SA, Tarnow D, Yip JK, Mojaver R (2017) The influence of cortical bone perforation on guided bone regeneration in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:261–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.017 CrossRefPubMed
Ulm C, Bertl K, Strbac GD, Esfandeyari A, Stavropoulos A, Zechner W (2017) Multiple perforations of the sinus floor during maxillary sinus floor augmentation to provide access to the bone marrow space: a technical report. Implant Dent 26:956–960. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000682 CrossRefPubMed
Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE 9:62–66
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez JY, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019 CrossRef
Jungner M, Cricchio G, Salata LA, Sennerby L, Lundqvist C, Hultcrantz M, Lundgren S (2015) On the early mechanisms of bone formation after maxillary sinus membrane elevation: an experimental histological and immunohistochemical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:1092–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12218 CrossRefPubMed
Rong Q, Li X, Chen SL, Zhu SX, Huang DY (2015) Effect of the Schneiderian membrane on the formation of bone after lifting the floor of the maxillary sinus: an experimental study in dogs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:607–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.02.010 CrossRefPubMed
Scala A, Botticelli D, Faeda RS, Garcia Rangel I, Américo de Oliveira J, Lang NP (2012) Lack of influence of the Schneiderian membrane in forming new bone apical to implants simultaneously installed with sinus floor elevation: an experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:175–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02227.x CrossRefPubMed
Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CH, Jung RE (2015) EAO supplement working group 4 - EAO CC 2015 short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(Suppl 11):154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12615 CrossRefPubMed
Stacchi C, Lombardi T, Ottonelli R, Berton F, Perinetti G, Traini T (2018) New bone formation after transcrestal sinus floor elevation was influenced by sinus cavity dimensions: a prospective histologic and histomorphometric study. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:465–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13144 CrossRefPubMed
Bertl K, Mick RB, Heimel P, Gahleitner A, Stavropoulos A, Ulm C (2018) Is it possible to meaningfully classify the maxillary sinus based on its bucco-palatal width? Clin Oral Implants Res in press
- Micro-CT evaluation of the cortical bone micro-architecture in the anterior and posterior maxilla and the maxillary sinus floor
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II