Histomorphometric Analysis of Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using an Alloplast Bone Substitute

Monophasic ß‐TCP vs. biphasic HA/ß‐TCP in two‐stage sinus floor augmentation procedures – a prospective randomized clinical trial

“…The results confirm the biocompatibility and osteoconductive characteristics which have been described for both BSM (Kolerman et al. ). Bone substitutes such as BBS (60% HA/40% β‐TCP) serve as guide track for the bone reconstruction (Mangano et al.…”

Comparison between mineralized cancellous bone allograft and an alloplast material for sinus augmentation: A split mouth histomorphometric study

“…Immediately before surgery, the patients rinsed their mouths with 0.2% chlorhexidine for 1 minute (Tarodent Taro Pharm Ind, Haifa, Israel). The surgical procedures followed the technique described by Smiler and Holmes with only minor modifications as described by Kolerman and colleagues . Briefly, after exposure of the lateral bony wall of the antrum and demarcation of the window boundaries with a 3‐mm diamond bur, the lateral bony wall was completely removed, exposing the schneiderian membrane.…”

“…Interactive measurements of the areas of interest were obtained using image analysis. Histomorphometric analysis was used to calculate percentage bone‐to‐graft particle contact (BGC %) by dividing the length of graft particles in contact with the new bone perimeter by the circumference of the graft particle perimeter . Pristine (native) bone was identified according to the lack of graft material and was excluded from the analyzed data.…”

“…It is noteworthy that while new bone formation fractions for FDBA and BCP were similar (27.5% and 24%, respectively), the fractions of residual graft particles (12.5% vs 25.4%) were significantly different. The present residual BCP fraction of 25.4% was similar that of the graft material compartment using 4Bone reported previously (27.3%) as well as to the mean of 25.8% that was extrapolated from 11 studies using an HA‐TCP formula . However, the scarcity of published comparative reports in this field imposes a difficulty in determining significant differences between the variously examined biomaterials in terms of new bone formation.…”

“…Therefore, the use of alloplast materials has been considered a viable alternative that is well accepted by most patients. Bioceramics made from a mixture of HA and β‐TCP have demonstrated satisfactory bioactivity and osteoconductivity …”