Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with a New Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background Insufficient residual alveolar bone height is a common deterrent in the placement of dental implants in the posterior maxilla. The use of autografts, xenografts, allografts and alloplasts or a combination between them has been demonstrated to be effective for increasing bone height and bo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2015-10, Vol.17 (S2), p.e586-e593
Hauptverfasser: Calasans-Maia, Mônica Diuana, Mourão, Carlos Fernando de A. B., Alves, Adriana Terezinha Neves Novellino, Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina, de Uzeda, Marcelo José P. G., Granjeiro, José Mauro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Insufficient residual alveolar bone height is a common deterrent in the placement of dental implants in the posterior maxilla. The use of autografts, xenografts, allografts and alloplasts or a combination between them has been demonstrated to be effective for increasing bone height and bone volume in the deficient posterior maxilla. Purpose The aim of this clinical trial is to comparatively determine the density of newly formed in sinus floor augmentation bone after a 24‐week healing period treatment with a new bovine xenograft. Materials and Methods The sinus floor was grafted with Bio‐Oss® (n = 10) and Osseous® (n = 10). Histological sections were examined with a focus on the presence of connective tissue (CT) and newly formed bone (NFB). The sections were histomorphometrically evaluated and the definitive crown was inserted after 3 months. Results After 6 months, the mean value of new bone formation was 24.60 (±2.503), the CT was 42.60 (±4.006) and the remaining biomaterial was 25.40 (±2.547) in Bio‐Oss group. In Osseous group, the mean value of new bone formation was 24.90 (±3.542), the CT was 45.70 (±7.040) and the remaining biomaterial was 22.90 (±3.247). Conclusions Both biomaterials afforded a favorable implant position and the prosthetic rehabilitation.
ISSN:1523-0899
1708-8208
DOI:10.1111/cid.12289