Long‐term stability of autologous bone graft of intraoral origin after lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement

Maddalone, Marcello; Mirabelli, Luca; Venino, Pier Matteo; Karanxha, Lorena; Porcaro, G; Fabbro, Massimo Del

doi:10.1111/cid.12649

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sinus lifting with the lateral technique, initially described by Boyne and James and established by Tatum, is the most commonly used approach to augment the maxillary sinus, which allow the installation of dental implants in the severely resorbed posterior maxilla. The implant survival rate, placed immediately or in two‐stage approach, after sinus lifting is higher than 95% according to a recent systematic review with meta‐analysis and with several retrospective studies, over a period of at least 5‐years of follow up, and the complication rate are minimal. Furthermore, different graft materials, such as autogenous, xenogenous, alloplastic, and the combination of bone grafts and growth factors can be safely used during maxillary sinus augmentation .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of L‐PRF combined with deproteinized bovine bone mineral for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation: A randomized clinical trial

Pichotano

Molon

Souza

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the effectiveness of adding leukocyte and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) to deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation. Materials and Methods Twelve patients requiring two‐stage bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation were enrolled to the study. The elevated sinus cavities were randomly grafted with DBBM + L‐PRF (test) or DBBM alone (control) in a split‐mouth design. Implants were placed in the augmented sites after 4 months in the test group and 8 months in the control group. Bone biopsies were collected during implant placement for histomorphometric evaluation. Resonance frequency analysis was performed immediately after implant placement and at implant loading in both groups. Cone‐beam computed tomography was obtained preoperatively and postoperatively for evaluation of graft volume changes. Results Both procedures were effective for maxillary sinus augmentation. Cone‐beam computed tomography analysis did not reveal differences in graft volume between test and control group at any of the evaluated time points (P > .05). Histological evaluation demonstrated increased percentage of newly formed bone for the test group (44.58% ± 13.9%) compared to the control group (30.02% ± 8.42%; P = .0087). The amount of residual graft in the control group was significantly higher (13.75% ± 9.99%) than in the test group (3.59 ± 4.22; P = .0111). Implant stability quotient (ISQ) immediately after implant placement was significantly higher in the control group (75.13 ± 5.69) compared to the test group (60.9 ± 9.35; P = .0003). The ISQ values at loading did not differ between the groups (P = .8587). Implant survival rate was 100% for both groups. Conclusion The addition of L‐PRF to the DBBM into the maxillary sinus allowed early implant placement (4 months) with increased new bone formation than DBBM alone after 8 months of healing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of L‐PRF combined with deproteinized bovine bone mineral for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation: A randomized clinical trial

Pichotano

Molon

Souza

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Autogenous bone graft is generally considered the preferred grafting material for MSFA due to its osteoinductive, osteogenic and osteoconductive characteristics [11]. Long-term studies have demonstrated high survival rates of suprastructures and implants, limited peri-implant marginal bone loss and few complications after MSFA with autogenous bone graft [12,13]. However, harvesting of autogenous bone graft is associated with risk of donor site morbidity and prolonged treatment time [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Starch‐Jensen¹,

Deluiz²,

Bruun³

et al. 2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objective of present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in histomorphometric outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft alone compared with alternate grafting materials applying the lateral window technique. Material and Methods MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with hand-search of relevant journals were conducted. Human studies published in English until the 25 th of March, 2020 were included. Histomorphometric outcomes were evaluated by descriptive statistics and meta-analysis including 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Electronic search and hand-searching resulted in 1902 entries. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with unclear risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics showed comparable or improved histomorphometric outcomes with autogenous bone graft. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference of -7.1% (CI = -11.0 to -3.2) indicating a significant higher amount of bone after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with alternate grafting materials. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a non-significantly differences of -3.7% (CI = -10.9 to 3.4), -11.5% (CI = -25.9 to 2.8), 2.2% (CI = -16.9 to 21.3), and -4.6% (CI = -14.4 to 5.2), when autogenous bone graft was compared with allogeneic bone graft, xenograft, composite grafting materials involving xenograft or synthetic biomaterial mixed with autogenous bone graft, respectively. Conclusions Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft seems to facilitate improved histomorphometric outcomes compared with alternate grafting materials. However, the included studies were characterised by an unclear risk of bias and various methodological confounding factors. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of present study should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

“…The consolidation phase is directly influenced by the bone graft origin, but the optimal source remains an area of intense debate (Yamada & Egusa, 2018). Autologous bone grafts (autografts), which contain a mineralized matrix scaffold, growth factors, and mitotically active osteoprogenitor cells (Maddalone et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2019), generally appear to be superior to allografts and xenografts in this regard (Buser et al., 1998; Chiapasco et al., 2009; Klijn et al., 2010). It should be emphasized that there is a knowledge gap in actual data demonstrating this potential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biology of sinus floor augmentation with an autograft versus a bone graft substitute in a preclinical in vivo experimental model

Coyac

Bahat

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Compared to autografts, bone graft substitutes are slower to consolidate. If we understood why, this might open strategies to accelerate new bone formation and thus shorten the time to implant placement. In this study, we aimed at comparing autologous bone graft with a bovine bone graft substitute in a preclinical sinus lift model. Materials and Methods The mouse posterior paranasal sinus served as a recipient site for grafting. Autograft from the oral cavity was compared against bone graft substitute using molecular, cellular, and histological analyses conducted on post‐grafting days (PSD) 0, 9, 18, and 120. Results Either autografts or bone graft substitutes were positioned on the sinus floor and remained in situ throughout the study. At the time of grafting and until day 9, bone graft substitutes were devoid of cells and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity while autografts were comprised of viable cells and showed strong ALP (mineralization) activity. Consequently, new bone formed faster in autografts compared to bone graft substitutes (140.21 ± 41.21 µm vs. 41.70 ± 10.09 µm, respectively, PSD9, p = .0143). By PSD18, osteogenesis was evident in autografted and xenografted sites. Osteoclasts identified by tartrate resistant acid phosphatase attached to, but did not resorb the bone graft substitute matrix. Autograft matrix, however, underwent extensive resorption. Transgenic mice revealed that Wnt‐responsive osteoprogenitor cells originated primarily from the internal periosteum of the maxillary bone, and not from the Schneiderian membrane. Conclusion Autografts produce new bone sooner, but bovine bone graft substitutes eventually consolidate and then resist resorption. Enhancing osteoprogenitor cell recruitment to a bone graft substitute constitutes a viable strategy for accelerating bone formation in a sinus lift procedure.

show abstract

Long‐term stability of autologous bone graft of intraoral origin after lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement

Abstract: Autologous bone grafts from intraoral donor sites display excellent volume stability over time that may contribute to optimal outcomes of the procedure.

Cited by 23 publications

References 42 publications

Evaluation of L‐PRF combined with deproteinized bovine bone mineral for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation: A randomized clinical trial

Evaluation of L‐PRF combined with deproteinized bovine bone mineral for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation: A randomized clinical trial

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Graft Alone Compared with Alternate Grafting Materials: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Histomorphometric Outcome

Biology of sinus floor augmentation with an autograft versus a bone graft substitute in a preclinical in vivo experimental model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About