Volume stability of the augmented sinus using a collagenated bovine bone mineral grafted in case of a perforated Schneiderian membrane: An experimental study in rabbits

Abstract

Objectives To determine the volume stability of a sinus augmented with a collagenated bovine bone mineral (CBBM) in case of an intact or perforated Schneiderian membrane (SM). Materials and Methods A bilateral sinus augmentation procedure was performed in eight rabbits. The SM was intentionally perforated in one side (SMP group), while it remained intact in contra‐lateral side (control group) and the same amount of CBBM was then grafted. At 12 weeks, the animals were euthanized for radiographic and histomorphometric analyses. Results The augmented volume did not differ significantly between the two groups: 262.2 ± 32.1 mm3 in SMP group and 261.9 ± 48.5 mm3 in the control group (p = .959). There was no significant difference in the total augmented area: 24.7 ± 5.2 mm2 in SMP group and 23.2 ± 2.9 mm2 in the control group (p = .773). The areas of newly formed bone also did not differ significantly between the two groups, but was significantly lower at the centre of the augmented region than in the region of the surgical window in both groups (p < .05). Conclusion A perforation of the SM in a rabbit model does neither impact the augmented volume nor new bone formation following grafting of the sinus with a CBBM.

Collagenated Synthetic Bone Substitute Material for Sinus Floor Elevation at Sites with a Perforated Schneiderian Membrane

“…Recently, the effect of collagenated bovine bone mineral without further use of a collagen barrier was tested in a sinus with SMP [18]. In that study, the amount of NB did not significantly differ between the sinuses with and without perforation, supplementing the results of the present study.…”

“…In addition, the total dimension of augmentation did not significantly differ between the test and the control groups. In line with this, similar dimension stability was radiographically and histomorphometrically noted between the sinuses with and without perforation in the study by Paik et al [18]. The unfavorable shape of augmentation should be noted at 2 weeks in a few specimens in both groups (one in the test group and two in the control group), which presented with bone substitute material slightly spilled via the perforated site.…”

“…However, in the present study, no distinct difference was found between the test and control groups. In another study, observed up to 12 weeks, the perforated Schneiderian membrane healed with dense connective tissue [18]. Taken together, a perforated Schneiderian membrane appears to heal to a clinically acceptable level with augmentation using collagenated bone substitute material.…”

Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus augmented with a collagenated synthetic bone block or synthetic bone particulates: A pre‐clinical study in rabbits

“…Not only they were easier to manipulate (Araujo, Liljenberg, & Lindhe, 2010), also showed a similar amount of newly formed bone (Benic et al., 2016) and improved volume maintenance (Mir‐Mari, Wui, Jung, Hämmerle, & Benic, 2016) compared to the particles. Recently, the advantage of using collagenated bovine bone substitute in volume stability and new bone formation has been reported, when solely grafted underneath the sinus membrane with minor perforation (Paik et al., 2020). However, particulated bone substitutes are still widely chosen in clinics, due to scarce scientific data directly comparing collagenated soft‐type block bone substitutes to particulated bone substitutes in the maxillary sinus.…”

Effect of Schneiderian membrane integrity on bone formation in sinus augmentation: An experimental study in rabbits

“…The grey‐scale intensity thresholds were set to 255 (upper) and 70 (lower) for the graft materials and 69 (upper) and 45 (lower) for the new bone based on the grey‐scale threshold setting, new bone volume (NBV, mm 3 ), residual graft material volume (RMV, mm 3 ), and non‐mineralized tissue volume (NMV, mm 3 ) within the TAV. NMV was calculated by subtracting NBV and RMV from TAV (Paik et al, 2020; Song et al, 2020). Radiographic measurements were performed twice by a blinded, experienced examiner using an automated digital method.…”