4.5 Article

Sinus augmentation analysis of the gradient of graft consolidation: a split-mouth histomorphometric study

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 3397-3406

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2793-3

关键词

Biomaterials; Sinus floor elevation; Bone substitute; Native bone; Gradient

资金

  1. Gerald A. Niznick Chair of Implantology at Tel-Aviv University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to histomorphometrically test the hypothesis that graft consolidation originates from the sinus floor.Materials and methodsThis prospective, randomized split-mouth study investigated patients undergoing bilateral maxillary lateral sinus floor augmentation using either freeze-dried bone allografts (FDBAs) or biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) bone substitute. Apico-coronal core biopsies were harvested during implant placement 9months after sinus floor augmentation, processed for histological observation, and measured histomorphometrically.ResultsBiopsies were taken from 26 bilateral sites in 13 patients. The density of new bone (NB) decreased with increasing distance from the sinus floor. The percentage mean surface of NB ranged from 319.5% at 2mm from the sinus floor (G1) to 27.711.2% at 4mm (G2) for the FDBA specimens and from 30.0 +/- 11.0% at G1 to 23.5 +/- 9.9% at G2 for the BCP specimens. Evaluation of the residual graft particle (GP) area alone as a function of distance from the floor revealed a clear inverse gradient of 7.1 +/- 6.6 to 9.1 +/- 10.3 between G1 and G2 for the FDBA allografts, with the same tendency for the BCP alloplasts (21.9 +/- 9.9 to 27.7 +/- 6.6, respectively).Conclusion Our results support the concept that osteogenesis initiates in regions proximal to the bony walls of the maxillary sinus and may be enhanced by them.Clinical relevance The nature of the grafting material had a greater influence on the degree of NB formation in regions distant from the native walls where there is reduced inherent osteogenic potential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据