A 2‐year prospective case series on volumetric changes, PROMs, and clinical outcomes following sinus floor elevation using deproteinized bovine bone mineral as filling material

Abstract

Background A sinus floor augmentation may be indicated when a lack of hard tissue impedes implant placement. Although clinically successful, evidence supporting the long‐term three‐dimensional stability of the grafted volume is scarce. Second, evidence on the patient's acceptance of this type of treatment is limited. Purpose First is to evaluate the changes in graft volume after lateral wall sinus lifting based on superimposed cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and then to assess patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods Partially edentulous patients in need of a sinus lift and fixed reconstruction on at least two neighboring implants were selected for a prospective case series. Lateral wall sinus augmentation was performed using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) as the only filling material. Volumetric changes were quantified on the basis of a preoperative CBCT and three postoperative CBCTs (at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 2 years). PROMs and clinical parameters were registered. Results Twenty‐two patients (7 males, 15 females; mean age 59 years) participated of which three patients dropped out during the follow up. Graft volumes amounted to 1418.26 mm3 at 2 weeks, 1201.21 mm3 at 3 months, and 1130.13 mm3 at 2 years postoperative pointing to a relative graft volume stability of 79.7%. Swelling was the leading symptom during the first week. A peak in visual analogue scale scores was observed for pain, swelling, and hematoma the day of surgery and 1 day postoperation with a statistically significant decline between days 3 and 7. Hemorrhage and nose bleeding occurred in 18.2% and 27.3% of the subjects, respectively. About 95.5% of the subjects would undergo the treatment again. All implants integrated successfully and demonstrated healthy clinical conditions. Conclusion Lateral wall sinus augmentation using DBBM as the only filling material is a viable treatment concept given limited graft resorption, good patients' tolerance, and clinical outcomes.

Tissue Level Changes after Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation with Three Types of Calcium Phosphate Ceramics: A Radiological Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up

“…Apart from the three fully synthetic calcium phosphate bone substitutes used in the present study, xenografts, such as demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), have been also widely used in MSFE procedures [43][44][45][46][47]. Clinical, radiological, and histomorphometrical studies on DBBM confirmed predictable outcomes after MSFE, meaning good quality and volume of regenerated tissue [17].…”

A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity: One‐year aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes

“…Other factors that may have an impact on clinical decision‐making are pain, oedema and haematoma during the early stages of healing. Ad hoc questions with a VAS scoring method that had already been validated in another study (Younes, Cosyn, De Bruyckere, Cleymaet, & Eghbali, ) were used to assess these PROMs. Pain was comparable in both groups, even though patients took more painkillers in the control group (7.10) than in the test group (4.86).…”

“…First, PROMs are difficult to assess and compare among studies given the lack of standardization in the literature. However, we used questions with a VAS scoring method that had already been validated in earlier research (Younes et al, ) and patients scored in the absence of the surgeon to reduce bias. Second, ample variables were evaluated in this study.…”

Maxillary sinus augmentation with three different biomaterials: Histological, histomorphometric, clinical, and patient‐reported outcomes from a randomized controlled trial

“…The last of the parameters that this study proposed to evaluate was that related to the influence of oral health, in this case after an MSA procedure such, on the quality of life. We decided to do it with a questionnaire, adopted by many other studies, handed to the patient at a specific time point, but with questions that related to the entire previous period 39‐41 . The total scores of the OHIP‐14 for the three groups were very low, showing that, despite its invasiveness, an MSA procedure does not have a negative impact on the quality of life of our patients.…”