4.4 Article

Comparison between mineralized cancellous bone allograft and an alloplast material for sinus augmentation: A split mouth histomorphometric study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12518

关键词

biomaterials; bone substitute; sinus floor elevation

资金

  1. MIS Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several grafting materials have been used in sinus augmentation procedures including autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone, hydroxyapatite, -tricalcium phosphate, anorganic deproteinized bovine bone, and combination of these and others. Yet, the issue of the optimal graft material for sinus floor augmentation is controversial. Purpose: This prospective, randomized split-mouth study was undertaken to histomorphometrically compare a biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) alloplastic bone substitute and a human bone mineral allograft (freeze-dried bone allograft, FDBA) in patients undergoing bilateral maxillary lateral sinus floor augmentation. Material and methods: Apico-coronal core biopsies were harvested at 9 months from 26 bilateral sites in 13 treated patients. Specimens were processed for histological and histomorphometrical analyses. Results: Newly formed bone (NB) was evident in all specimens with values of 27.5% and 24.0% at the FDBA and BCP sites, respectively (P=.331). The residual graft particle values were 12.5% and 25.4% (P=.001), and the connective tissue values were 60.0% and 50.6%, respectively. The osteoconductive value was 52.6% for the FDBA and 26.7% for the alloplast (P=.001). The values for the measured residual graft particles, connective tissue, and osteoconductivity, but not for NB, showed highly significant differences between the two groups. All sections in the alloplast material showed evidence of a light chronic inflammatory infiltrate, mainly comprising lymphocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Conclusions: Both graft materials are suitable for sinus floor augmentation, with the allograft material being more osteoconductive.

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

4.4
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