Maxillary Sinus Augmentation With Different Biomaterials: A Comparative Histologic and Histomorphometric Study in Man

Degidi, Marco; Iezzi, Giovanna; Pecora, Gabriele; Piattelli, M; Orsini, Giovanna; Caputi, Sergio; Perrotti, Vittoria; Mangano, Carlo; Piattelli, Adriano

doi:10.1097/01.id.0000220120.54308.f3

Cited by 207 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Outros trabalhos mostram também bons resultados quando da realização do implante imediato ao levantamento do seio maxilar e a utilização de biomaterial: Scarano et al 8 inseriram 362 implantes em 94 pacientes e tiveram apenas seis implantes perdidos; taxa de sucesso de 98,35%; Peleg et al 9 em um acompanhamento a longo prazo, por nove anos, foram colocados 2.132 implantes desses, 44 falharam, representando uma taxa de sucesso de 97,9%. Mangano et al 7 , colocaram 100 implantes em dois tipos de biomateriais e tiveram quatro falhas, o que representa uma taxa de sucesso de 96%.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Levantamento de Seio maxilar utilizando osso liofilizado associado a instalação imediata de implante do tipo cone morse: relato de caso

Albuquerque

Cardoso²,

Silva

et al. 2014

Rev. da Fac. de Odontologia, UPF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Levantamento de Seio maxilar utilizando osso liofilizado associado a instalação imediata de implante do tipo cone morse: relato de caso

Albuquerque

Cardoso²,

Silva

et al. 2014

Rev. da Fac. de Odontologia, UPF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…34 A low resorption process was present and the graft showed a pattern similar to that of host bone. 34 Le Lorc'h-Bukiet et al concluded that bone remodeling seems to be more active in the cancellous portion than in the cortical portion. 35 After 10 months of grafting, the bone chips were incorporated in newly formed bone and almost completely resorbed.…”

Section: Donor Sitementioning

confidence: 96%

“…Complications related to the harvesting of intraoral bone are seldom reported, especially using the shaving technique described by Peleg et al 20 Scarano et al compared different materials in maxillary sinus floor augmentation, including intraoral autologous bone grafts. 34 Almost all autologous bone particles were completely surrounded by newly formed bone. 34 A low resorption process was present and the graft showed a pattern similar to that of host bone.…”

Section: Donor Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery Using Autologous Bone Grafts from Various Donor Sites: A Meta-Analysis of the Total Bone Volume

Klijn

Meijer

Bronkhorst

et al. 2010

Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To date, no studies have been published that evaluated histomorphometric data from a large number of patients while comparing different sites and methods of autologous bone grafting in sinus floor augmentation procedures. A meta-analysis of the English literature from January 1995 till April 2009 was carried out. Results: Out of 147 titles, according to our criteria, 25 articles were left for analysis. The majority were prospective controlled studies (21) and 2 randomized clinical trials, 1 pilot study and 1 case series. A reference value of 47% for total bone volume (TBV) was found while using iliac bone grafting as a standard. Use of intraoral bone grafts increases the TBV, with 11% for chin bone and 14% for bone grafted from other intraoral sites. Particulation of the bone graft has a negative effect on the TBV of 18%. Surprisingly, no correlation between TBV and the time of graft healing was found. Histological section thickness seemed to be a significant variable, as every micron increase of section thickness leads to an increase of 0.4% of TBV. Conclusions: Bone grafting from the iliac crest resulted in a significantly lower TBV compared with intraoral bone grafting. However, due to the limited availability of intraoral bone to be harvested, iliac grafts still have to be considered the gold standard in augmenting the severely atrophic maxilla.

show abstract

“…Most of the biocompatible bone graft materials are known to yield a good result in terms of the survival rate of implant, but maxillary sinus bone graft materials may be absorbed over time 12) . Bone graft materials include allogenous bone, xenogenous bone, and synthetic bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective Study of Bone Resorption after Maxillary Sinus Bone Graft

Moon¹,

Cho²,

Jung³

et al. 2011

Journal of Korean Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, Hee-Kyun Oh 2 ·Abstract Purpose: This research sought to determine the resorption rate of bone grafted to the maxillary sinus according to the grafted material's type, patient's age, systemic disease, implant size, site of implant placement, and residual ridge height. Materials and Methods: This research targeted 24 patients who had immediate Osstem ® implant (US Plus ® ) placement after bone graft. The panorama was taken before the surgery, after the surgery, and 6 months after the surgery. Vertical height change and resorption rate of the grafted bone were measured with the same X-rays and compared. The influence of the following factors on the grafted bone material's resorption rate was evaluated: grafted material type, patient's age, systemic disease, implant size, site of implant placement, and residual ridge height. Results: Patients in their 40s had 34.0±21.1% resorption rate, which was significantly higher compared to the other age groups (P<0.05). There was no significant relationship between systemic disease and grafted bone resorption. There was no significant relationship between implant size (diameter, length) and grafted bone resorption. There was no significant relationship between the site of implant placement and grafted bone resorption. The ramal bone-grafted site was significantly more resorbed than the ramal bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site, maxillary tuberosity bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site, and ramal bone/maxillary tuberosity bone/Bio-Oss ® -grafted site (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the grafted bone resorption rate in the sinus between more than 4 mm and less than 4 mm residual ridge heights. After an average of 6 months, a second surgery was done; given an average follow-up of 1.9 years, the success rate and survival rate of the implant were 96.9% and 98.4%, respectively. Conclusion: These results indicate that the bone resorption rate of grafted bone among patients in their 40s is higher compared to patients in their 50s and over, and that only autogenous bone (ramus) shows higher resorption rate than the mixed graft of autogenous bone and xenogenous graft (Bio-oss) after maxillary sinus graft.

show abstract

Maxillary Sinus Augmentation With Different Biomaterials: A Comparative Histologic and Histomorphometric Study in Man

Cited by 207 publications

References 68 publications

Levantamento de Seio maxilar utilizando osso liofilizado associado a instalação imediata de implante do tipo cone morse: relato de caso

Levantamento de Seio maxilar utilizando osso liofilizado associado a instalação imediata de implante do tipo cone morse: relato de caso

Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery Using Autologous Bone Grafts from Various Donor Sites: A Meta-Analysis of the Total Bone Volume

Retrospective Study of Bone Resorption after Maxillary Sinus Bone Graft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About