Maxillary sinus augmentation using xenogenic bone substitute material Bio‐Oss^® in combination with venous blood

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate bone formation following maxillary sinus augmentation using bovine bone substitute material Bio-Oss in combination with venous blood by means of histologic and histomorphometric examination of human biopsies. This involved a total of 15 sinus floor elevation procedures being carried out on 11 patients (average age of 49.6 years) according to the technique described by Tatum (1986). The subantral sinus cavity was augmented using bovine apatite combined with venous blood. After an average healing phase of 6.8 months, trephine burrs were used to take 22 bone biopsies from the augmented sinus region. Then 38 Brånemark implants were inserted in both the osteotomies resulting from bone sampling and in regular sites in the augmented posterior maxilla. Histomorphometric analysis of ground sections from the bone biopsies prepared according to the standard method of Donath & Breuner (1982) produced an average percentage of newly-formed bone of 14.7% (+/- 5.0%) and a proportion of residual xenogenic bone substitute material of 29.7% (+/- 7.8%). Some 29.1% (+/- 8.1%) of the surface of the Bio-Oss granulate was in direct contact with newly-formed bone. Histologically, newly-developed bone became evident, partly invaginating the particles of apatite and forming bridges in the form of trabeculae between the individual Bio-Oss particles. Despite the absence of osteoclastic activity, the inward growth of bone indicates slow resorption of the xenogenic bone graft material. When the implants were uncovered, after an average healing phase of 6 months, 4 of the 38 implants had become loose. Of these 4 implants, 1 had to be subsequently explanted, while the others remained as "sleeping implants" and were not included in the implants superstructure. Thus, the resulting clinical survival rate, prior to prosthetic loading, was 89.5%.

The Effects of Regenerative Materials on Biomarkers, Clinical and Radiological Features of Healing Defects Treated by Guided Bone Regeneration

“…While some bone substitutes undergo almost immediate biodegradation and resorption, others can be detected on the implant site for several years [1,18]. Moreover, some materials are reported to have better osteointegration with host bone [19].…”

“…Although allografts, xenegrafts as well as synthetic regenerative materials have shown satisfactory results in clinical applications [17], the resorption rate of regenerative material, the quality of bone formed as well as the rate of bone formation are determined by the type of materials used for regeneration [1][2][3]. While some bone substitutes undergo almost immediate biodegradation and resorption, others can be detected on the implant site for several years [1,18].…”

“…Bone regeneration has become a common method of managing bone defects in oral-facial surgery and orthopedics practices [1][2][3]. Bone regeneration is a very complex process involving various cells and signaling molecules during specific phases of the healing process under well-coordinated sequence of many biological events.…”

Comparative Study of Alveolar Bone Height and Implant Survival Rate Between Autogenous Bone Mixed with Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Venous Blood for Maxillary Sinus Lift Augmentation Procedure

“…In 2001, Yildirium et al [19] evaluated the bone formation following maxillary sinus augmentation using bovine substitute material bio-oss in combination with VB by means of histologic and histomorphometric examination of human biopsies and histomorphometric examination of human biopsies and the analysis showed 14.7 % newly formed bone and 29.1 % of the surface of the bio-oss granulate was in direct contact with newly formed bone. Study by Lundgren et al [20] indicated that bone grafts or bone substitutes may not be needed to achieve augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor.…”

Using fractal dimension to evaluate alveolar bone defects treated with various bone substitute materials

“…For the clinician it would be valuable to assess the bone regeneration after the implantation of different biomaterials. The effect of various grafts including allogenic bone, alloplastic bone substitutes and their combinations [15][16][17][18][19]20,21] have been extensively studied in animal models [22][23][24][25]26] and in vitro experiments [27,28]. There has also been research assessing the augumentation process with the use of clinical, histological and histomorphometrical analysis in humans [29].…”