The influence of bone substitute materials on the bone volume after maxillary sinus augmentation: a microcomputerized tomography study
This study aims to evaluate the effect of adding bone substitute materials (BSM) to particulated autogenous bone (PAB) on the volume fraction (Vf) of newly formed bone after maxillary sinus augmentation.
Materials and methods
Thirty healthy patients undergoing maxillary sinus augmentation were included. PAB (N = 10), mixtures of PAB and beta-tricalciumphosphate (PAB/β-TCP) (N = 10), as well as PAB and β-TCP and hydroxyapatite (PAB/HA/β-TCP) (N = 10) were randomly used for sinus augmentation. A sample of the graft material was maintained from each patient at time of maxillary sinus augmentation, and Vfs of the PAB and/or BSM in the samples were determined by means of microcomputerized tomography (μ-CT). Five months later, samples of the grafted areas were harvested during implantation using a trephine bur. μ-CT analysis of these samples was performed, and the Vf of bone and BSM were compared with the data obtained 5 months earlier from the original material.
The mean Vf of the bone showed a statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in all groups after a healing period of 5 months without statistically significant difference between the groups.
With regard to the increase of bone volume, it is not relevant if PAB is used alone or combined with β-TCP or HA/β-TCP.
The amount of PAB and associated donor site morbidity may be reduced by adding BSM for maxillary sinus augmentation.
KeywordsMaxillary sinus augmentation Bone Substitute materials
The study was partly funded by a study grant of the University of Mainz (MAIFOR). We extend our gratitude to Prof. Dr. Heinz Duschner for the facilities in terms of μ-CT acquisition and Irene Mischak for the statistical analysis.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- 1.Boyne PJ, James RA (1980) Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:613–661Google Scholar
- 3.Huerzeler MB, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Quinones CR (1996) Reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with dental implants in the augmented maxillary sinus: a 5-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:466–475Google Scholar
- 5.Kreisler M, Moritz O, d'Hoedt B (2006) Evidence-based medicine in sinus floor elevation part 1: general aspects and the influence of the grafting material on implant prognosis. J Dent Implantol 22:299–323Google Scholar
- 6.Kreisler M, Moritz O, d'Hoedt B (2007) Evidence-based medicine in sinus floor elevation part 2: direct and indirect factors in sinus floor elevation and their influence on implant prognosis. J Dent Implantol 23:68–86Google Scholar
- 7.Froum SJ, Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Rohrer MD, Cho SC (1998) Sinus floor elevation using bovine bone mineral (OsteoGraf/N) with and without autogenous bone: a clinical, histologic, radiographic and histomorphometric analysis—part 2 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodonics Restor Dent 18:528–543Google Scholar
- 12.Wanschitz F, Figl M, Wagner A, Ewers R (2006) Measurement of volume changes after sinus floor augmentation with phycogenic hydroxyapatite. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 21:422–438Google Scholar
- 17.Froum SJ, Wallace SS, Cho SC, Elian N, Tarnow DP (2008) Histomorphometric comparison of a biphasic bone ceramic to anorganic bovine bone for sinus augmentation: 6- to 8-month postsurgical assessment of vital bone formation. A pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 28:273–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Huerzeler MB, Quinones CR, Kirsch A, Schupbach P, Krausse A, Strub JC et al (1997) Maxillary sinus augmentation using different grafting materials and dental implants in monkeys. Part III. Evaluation of autogenous bone combined with porous hydroxyapatite. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Frenken JWFH, Bouwman WF, Bravenboer N, Zijderveld SA, Schulten EAJM, Bruggenkate CM (2010) The use of Straumann® Bone Ceramic in maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure: a clinical, radiological, histological and histomorphometric evaluation with a 6-month healing period. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:201–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Artzi Z, Weinreb M, Carmeli G, Lev-Dor R, Dard M, Nemcovsky CE (2010) Histomorphometric assessment of bone formation in sinus augmentation utilizing a combination of autogenous and hydroxyapatite/biphasic tricalcium phosphate graft materials: at 6 and 9 month in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:686–692Google Scholar