Maxillary sinus grafting with fresh frozen allograft versus bovine bone mineral: A tomographic and histological study. Issue 6 (June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xavier, Samuel Porfirio; Santos, Thiago de Santana; Sehn, Felipe Perraro; Silva, Erick Ricardo; Garcez-Filho, João de Andrade; Martins-Filho, Paulo Ricardo Saquete
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 44:Issue 6(2016)
• Page Start: 708
• Page End: 714
• Publication Date: 2016-06
• Subjects: Bone substitutes -- Computed tomography -- Maxillary sinus floor elevation -- Histological analysis; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.03.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: We evaluated histologically and tomographically the effects of fresh frozen bone allograft (FFB) or bovine bone mineral (BBM) in maxillary sinus floor augmentations. In total, 30 maxillary sinuses from 30 patients (mean age = 51.17 ± 10.86 years) underwent sinus augmentation. Patients were divided in two test groups (15 sinuses each). The first group was grafted with allograft bone, and the second group received bovine bone mineral. After 6 months, bone samples from each group were collected for histological examination. Implant survival rates were 97.78% (FFB group) and 100% (BBM group) 6 months after functional loading. Median volumetric reductions of 31.2% (11.33–40.56) and 12.22% (9.91–20.59) were observed in the FFB and BBM groups, respectively. Comparisons between the groups for differences in initial and final volumes of bone (p = 0.015) and the rate of resorption (p = 0.009) showed statistically significant differences. The FFB group showed osteoblastic cells in close contact with osteoid matrix, connected through bridges between allograft bone particles and new bone formation. The BBM group showed BBM particles in close contact with new bone, with visible osteoid matrix bridges and osteoblastic cells surrounding it. None showed signs of acute or chronic inflammatory infiltrate. Despite better results with BBM, both FFB and BBM in maxillary sinus augmentation resulted in high percentages of new bone formation, and allowed implant placement with a low rate of failure of osseointegration at a 6-month follow-up.