Impact of autogenous concentrated bone marrow aspirate on bone regeneration after sinus floor augmentation with a bovine bone substitute – a split‐mouth pilot study

Abstract

There was no significant difference in new bone formation between the test and control group with n = 7. The results may be dominated by the high mineral content of the biomaterial but could nevertheless be valuable for meta-analysis in the future.

Effects of oestrogen deficiency and 17β-estradiol therapy on bone healing in calvarial critical size defects treated with bovine bone graft

“…Despite our findings, xenografts, like certain BBGs primarily used in dentistry, may be slow to degrade [77][78][79] and does not allow for extensive bone regeneration because of its low osteogenic power. 80 However, these materials have been used successfully in numerous clinical and preclinical studies, including guided bone regeneration, 81,82 sinus augmentation 83,84 and socket augmentation, 85,86 suggesting that the present study has important implications in the clinical setting. Furthermore, little is known about the effects of oestrogen deficiency on bone reconstruction procedures.…”

Maxillary sinus augmentation using chairside bone marrow aspirate concentrates for implant site development: a systematic review of histomorphometric studies

“…For vital mineralized bone, these studies reported variable statistical significance. At 3–4 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups with controls [2, 14, 15] using no BMAC was 7.4–12.6% and for the control groups was 9.45–14.3%. At 6 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups [2, 15] was 13.5–14.12% and for control groups was 10.41–13.9%.…”

“…At 3–4 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups with controls [2, 14, 15] using no BMAC was 7.4–12.6% and for the control groups was 9.45–14.3%. At 6 months, new bone formation for BMAC groups [2, 15] was 13.5–14.12% and for control groups was 10.41–13.9%. For new bone formation, most studies reported no significant difference between the test and control and between the 3 and 6 months histologic evaluation.…”

“…The published clinical and histomorphometric studies [2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15] were generally seeking the same clinical outcome: implants surgically placed in bone regenerated by selected tissue engineering approaches. Generally, BMAC derived by the iliac crest or tibia is mixed with bovine bone (test group) and compared with bovine bone alone (control group) after placement into the maxillary sinus.…”

In vivo comparison of hard tissue regeneration with ovine mesenchymal stem cells processed with either the FICOLL method or the BMAC method

“…Previously, it has been proven that the BMAC method is suitable for isolating cells for sinus augmentation of human MSCs, and that 'making bone' with BBM and the isolated cells is possible (Schmelzeisen et al, 2011). A multicentric sinus augmentation study has been performed to compare these two separation models in patients McAllister et al, 2009;Oshima et al, 2014;Sauerbier et al, 2010aSauerbier et al, , 2010bWildburger et al, 2013); similar cell numbers from the two isolation procedures for cell harvesting were found. Bovine bone mineral was vitalized with the separated cells and inserted into the maxillary sinus.…”