Implant Stability, Bone Graft Loss and Density with Conventional and Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix Bone Graft Preparations - A Randomized Crossover Trial

Abstract

This study aimed to compare implant stability, bone loss, and bone density using the mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) and conventional bone grafting methods. Patients were recruited in a stratified sample and each received 2 implants one at each side of their upper jaws. MPM was randomly placed in the surgical site around one implant on one side while a conventional graft, was placed on the other side in a cross-over design clinical trial. A total of 84 implants were placed in 42 patients. A total of 42 implants utilized conventional grafts (GM1) and a total of 42 implants utilized mineralized plasmatic matrix (GM2). Mean Perio test measurements for implants in the group (GM1) were lower than that for implants in the group (GM2) (1.21±3.0 versus 3.57±2.9). Mean radiographic density at grafted sites with GM2 was: 665.2±236.5 whereas for GM1 it was: 577.8±201.2. Implant stability with MPM in males was significantly higher than females (P<0.001). Bone graft loss with MPM in males was significantly less than females (P=0.001). There were no differences between older and younger patients regarding implant stability, bone loss, and bone density (P>0.05). It is concluded that utilizing MPM in implants may be associated with better implant treatment outcomes of implant stability, bone graft loss, and density when compared to conventional bone grafts. Gender but not age differences may be noticed when comparing implant stability and bone graft loss in implants utilizing MPM.

Evaluation of Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix With and Without Collagen Membrane in Anterior Maxillary Horizontal Alveolar Defect (Randomized Clinical Trial)

“…In group 1, the mean value of peri-implant bone loss was 0.34± 0.18 mm at 3 months and 0.65± 0.22 mm at 9 months, whereas in group 2 it was 0.35± 0.15 mm at 3 months and 0.63± 0.21 mm at 9 months. This was in line with the findings of Sghaireen et al (37) in 2020 in their study comparing bone loss, bone density and implant stability using standard graft operations against mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM). A typical graft was put in one site surrounding one implant on one side while MPM was used on the other side in a cross-over design clinical experiment.…”

“…In this study, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding peri-implant bone density as in group 1, the mean was 550.8 ± 115 HU immediately post-operative, 631.6 ± 135.0 HU at 3 months and 774.2 ± 95.02 HU at 9 months while in group 2 was 610.8 ± 144.9 HU immediately post-operative, 708.0 ± 120.4 HU at 3 months and 816.1 ± 92.42 HU at 9 months. This was in line with the findings of Sghaireen et al (37) in 2020 in their study comparing bone loss, bone density and implant stability using standard graft operations against mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM), after 4-5 months, the mean value of radiographic density of bone at the MPM side was 665.2±236.5 HU while in the typical graft side was 577.8±201.2 HU. There was statistically significant increase in bone density in the MPM side.…”

Clinical, Radiographic, and Histological Evaluation of the Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix/Xenograft Mixture in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

“…Also, the mineralized plasmatic matrix was mixed with autogenous bone graft to repair alveolar defects with or without cleft palate. Furthermore, it was stated that the mineralized plasmatic matrix can positively affect implant treatment outcomes in terms of stability, graft loss, and density [11]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate clinically, radiographically, and histologically the effect of the mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) when mixing it with xenogenic bone graft in sinus floor elevation surgery.…”