Assessment of the value of anorganic bone additives in sinus floor augmentation: a review of clinical reports

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.36). 03/2003; 32(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0346
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In order to objectively assess the value of anorganic bone additives in sinus floor augmentation, a review of the English literature till May 2002 was carried out. The studies or parts of studies had to include at the least two patients, with a follow-up of at least 3 months, whilst histomorphometric data ought to be available of biopsies taken from the core of the graft. Only 12 studies fulfilled these criteria. Firm conclusions could not be drawn because there were substantial differences in histomorphometric techniques, healing periods and ratio autogenous bone anorganic additives, but it seemed that autogenous bone without anorganic additives resulted in the highest amount of bone after a 4-6 months healing period, while hydroxyapatite and bovine bone mineral, used as a bone substitute, gave the lowest amount of bone. No correlation between bone volume and time of graft healing could be found. The consequences, however, for implant placement and survival are at present, not fully understood. A plea is made for systematic prospective clinical and experimental studies to assess the various bone additives and ratios of autogenous bone to bone additives in composite grafts analysed with an adequate histomorphometric technique. Part of this study was presented at the 15th ICOMS, Durban, South Africa, 19-24 May 2001.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The placement of implants in the posterior maxillary area is considered a reliable procedure, offering recognized rehabilitative advantages. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of dental implants placed in the sinus floor augmented with a block autograft by comparing the outcomes over 5 years with those of dental implants positioned in non-augmented bone. This retrospective cohort study included 16 patients who had undergone prosthetic rehabilitation supported by dental implants between 2000 and 2006. One implant per patient was included and assigned to one of two predictor groups: grafted versus ungrafted maxillary sinus. Changes in marginal bone level (MBL) and apical bone level (ABL) over time, at 1, 3, and 5 years, were the primary outcome variables. Appropriate pair-wise comparison tests were performed. No significant differences were seen with regard to ABLs and among times between the grafted group (nine implants) and the ungrafted group (seven implants). Significant marginal bone resorption was found over time, primarily at the buccal aspect, in both study groups. The bone surrounding the apex of dental implants appeared stable after sinus augmentation in the grafted area. The behaviour of the two groups with regard to loss of MBLs over time was very similar.
    International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 04/2014; 43(9). DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.016 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The maxillary sinus bone graft procedure is one of the predictable and successful treatments for the rehabilitation of atrophic and pneumatized edentulous posterior maxilla. Materials used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation include autogenous bone, allogenic bone, xenogenic bone and alloplastic materials. Among them, autogenous bone grafts still represents 'gold standard'for bone augmentation procedures. We selected the mandibular ramus area as a donor site for the autogenous bone graft because of low donor site morbidity. We performed maxillary sinus bone graft procedures with implant placement using particulated ramal autobone and bovine bone mixture, and got good results. This is a preliminary report of the maxillary sinus bone graft using particulated ramal autobone and bovine bone, requires more long-term follow up and further studies.
    01/2009; 31(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives This investigation focused on histological characteristics and 5-year implant survival after sinus floor augmentation with anorganic bovine bone (ABB, Bio-Oss®) and ABB plus autologous bone (AB) with a ratio of 1/1.Material and methodsNineteen consecutive patients with bony atrophy of the posterior edentulous maxilla and a vertical bone height ≤4 mm were prospectively included in this study. In the first surgical stage, the maxillary sinus was non-randomized either augmented with ABB alone (n = 12) or a 1/1 mixture of ABB and AB (n = 7). After a mean healing period of 167 days, biopsies were harvested in the region of the grafted sinus with a trephine burr and implants were placed simultaneously, ABB n = 18 and ABB + AB n = 12. The samples were microradiographically and histomorphometrically analyzed judging the newly formed bone (bone volume, BV), residual bone substitute material volume (BSMV), and intertrabecular volume (soft tissue volume, ITV) in the region of the augmented maxillary sinus. Implant survival was retrospectively evaluated from patient's records.ResultsNo significant difference in residual bone substitute material (BSMV) in the ABB group (31.21 ± 7.74%) and the group with the mixture of ABB and AB (28.41 ± 8.43%) was histomorphologically determined. Concerning the de novo bone formation, also both groups showed statistically insignificant outcomes; ABB 26.02 ± 5.23% and ABB + AB 27.50 ± 6.31%. In all cases, implants were installed in the augmented sites with sufficient primary stability. After a mean time in function of 5 years and 2 months, implant survival was 93.75% in the ABB and 92.86% in the ABB + AB group with no statistically significant differences.Conclusion The usage of ABB plus AB to a 1/1 ratio leads to an amount of newly formed bone comparable with the solitary use of ABB after grafting of the maxillary sinus. Considering that ABB is a non-resorbable bone substitute, it can be hypothesized that this leads to stable bone over time and long-term implant success. Importantly, in the sole use of ABB, bone grafting and therefore donor site morbidities can be avoided.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/2014; DOI:10.1111/clr.12396 · 3.12 Impact Factor