Maxillary Sinus Elevation Surgery with ChronOS and Autogenous Bone Graft: Analysis of Histometric and Volumetric Changes

Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos; Boos, Fernanda Brasil Jorge Daura; Gorla, Luis Fernado; Garcia, Idelmo Rangel; Okamoto, Roberta; Hochuli‐Vieira, Eduardo

doi:10.11607/prd.2404

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A significant number of confounding variables, such as the size of the antrostomy, the proximity of lateral sinus walls to the biopsy harvest sites, the angulation of the perforation during the harvesting of the biopsy samples, and the height of the residual ridge height, are quite difficult to control and may be responsible for the large standard deviations in the presented data. However, these variation rates are characteristic of this type of study (Dos Santos Pereira et al, 2016;Kolerman et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Remodelling of sinus bone grafts according to the distance from the native bone: A histomorphometric analysis

Pignaton

Spin‐Neto

Ferreira

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of adequate bone width and height is a common finding interfering with the correct planning for dental implant placement (Corbella, Taschieri, Weinstein, & Del Fabbro, 2016). The edentulous posterior maxillary region poses an especially relevant clinical challenge since sinus pneumatization following tooth loss speeds up the progression of alveolar bone loss (Esposito, Felice, & Worthington, 2014). In these cases, rehabilitation with dental implants usually demands grafting procedures (i.e., sinus bone graft, or sinus lifting)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Remodelling of sinus bone grafts according to the distance from the native bone: A histomorphometric analysis

Pignaton

Spin‐Neto

Ferreira

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each slice was reduced to a 1 mm distance between them using the “Reduce series” tool. The contrast and exposure were adjusted to “center level” (L=667) and “bandwidth” (W=3086) to facilitate the structures’ contour as recommended previously 8 , 9 , 18 . The bone graft is better visualized with the selection of image filter “flow” at the “CLUT” tool in the toolbar.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioactive glass added to autogenous bone graft in maxillary sinus augmentation: a prospective histomorphometric, immunohistochemical, and bone graft resorption assessment

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the bone resorption rate, histomorphometry and immunohistochemical findings of bioactive glass (Biogran; Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) mixed with autogenous bone grafts (1:1) and autogenous bone graft isolate in maxillary sinus elevation surgery.Material and MethodsA total of 9 maxillary sinuses were grafted with Biogran with autogenous bone graft (group 1) and 12 were mixed with autogenous bone graft (group 2). Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure the initial graft volume after 15 days (T1), and 6 months later, another CBCT scan was performed to evaluate the final graft volume (T2) and determine the graft resorption rate. The resorption outcomes were 37.9%±18.9% in group 1 and 45.7%±18.5% in group 2 (P=0.82). After 6 months, biopsies were obtained concurrent with the placement of dental implants; these implants were subjected to histomorphometric analysis and immunohistochemical analysis for tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP).ResultsThe average bone formation in group 1 was 36.6%±12.9 in the pristine bone region, 33.2%±13.3 in the intermediate region, and 45.8%±13.8 in the apical region; in group 2, the values were 34.4%±14.4, 35.0%±13.9, and 42.0%±16.6 of new bone formation in the pristine bone, intermediate, and apical regions, respectively. Immunostaining for TRAP showed poor clastic activity in both groups, which can indicate that those were in the remodeling phase.ConclusionsThe similarity between the groups in the formation and maintenance of the graft volume after 6 months suggests that the bioactive glass mixed with autogenous bone (1:1) can be used safely as a bone substitute for the maxillary sinus lift.

show abstract

“…Rates of bone graft resorption using b-TCP alone, b-TCP and autogenous bone graft (1:1), and autogenous bone graft alone were, respectively, 38.33, 43.82, and 45.75%, as reported by Gorla et al 17 In their study, they performed further analysis to evaluate new bone formation by immunohistochemical assessment and compared the materials qualitatively. Dos Santos Pereira et al 34 reported more bone formation using an autogenous bone graft than its combination with b-TCP in a 1:1 ratio. The resorption of b-TCP after maxillary sinus bone augmentation was similar to that of autogenous bone graft.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective and Randomized Evaluation of ChronOS and Bio-Oss in Human Maxillary Sinuses: Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemical Assignment for Runx 2, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, and Osteocalcin

Bonardi

Pereira

Lima

et al. 2018

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Maxillary Sinus Elevation Surgery with ChronOS and Autogenous Bone Graft: Analysis of Histometric and Volumetric Changes

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

Remodelling of sinus bone grafts according to the distance from the native bone: A histomorphometric analysis

Remodelling of sinus bone grafts according to the distance from the native bone: A histomorphometric analysis

Bioactive glass added to autogenous bone graft in maxillary sinus augmentation: a prospective histomorphometric, immunohistochemical, and bone graft resorption assessment

Prospective and Randomized Evaluation of ChronOS and Bio-Oss in Human Maxillary Sinuses: Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemical Assignment for Runx 2, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, and Osteocalcin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About