Histomorphometric Evaluation of Mineralized Cancellous Allograft in the Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A 4 Case Report

Abstract

Mineralized cancellous allografts showed favorable bone regeneration histologically and was clinically useful in augmenting bone volume for implant placement in the sinus bone graft.

Immunohistochemical, tomographic, and histological study on onlay bone graft remodeling. Part III: allografts

“…Unlike the AUg group, the histology related to ALg group showed predominance of empty osteocytes lacunae and poor vascularization. These histological features are defined as non-vital bone, in spite of mature bone formation surrounding the graft (Sohn et al 2009). Indeed, in our study the groups AUg and ALg were similar histologically in all parameters assessed, but at 60 days a greater presence of new bone was observed in the interface bone graft recipient in the AUg group but not in ALg group.…”

Bone Replacement Materials and Techniques Used for Achieving Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation

“…However, these very low risks are far outweighed by the advantages associated with allografts, which resulted in an increased use of allografts in routine practice [166,197,198,199,200]. Allograft particles of different sizes and origins (cortical, cancellous or both) are being used for various bone augmentation procedures such as ridge augmentation [147,166,200,201], sinus augmentation [122,124,202,203,204] and in ridge preservation after tooth extraction [201,205,206,207,208,209,210]. Allografts are mostly prepared as fresh, frozen, freeze-dried, mineralized and demineralized, and each of these are available as cortical chips, cortical granules, cortical wedges or cancellous powdered grafts [17,211].…”

Corticocancellous fresh‐frozen allograft bone blocks for augmenting atrophied posterior mandibles in humans

“…; Nkenke & Neukam ), longer surgical time, and higher cost are disadvantages (Ellis & Sinn ; Sohn et al. ). Potential graft reabsorption of up to 87% has been observed in some studies.…”

“…An autogenous bone graft has advantages and is considered the gold standard (Sajid et al 2011) for its properties of osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and osteogenic potential (Hoexter 2002;Marx 2007), as well as providing a satisfactory three-dimensional (3D) framework (Petrungaro & Amar 2005). However, morbidity of the donor site (Khan et al 2005;Nkenke & Neukam 2014), longer surgical time, and higher cost are disadvantages (Ellis & Sinn 1993;Sohn et al 2009). Potential graft reabsorption of up to 87% has been observed in some studies.…”