Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial
Aim To compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes. Materials and methods A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in ne...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.524-536 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 536 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 524 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo Abril‐García, Dario Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen Zurita, Federico Martín‐Morales, Natividad O’Valle, Francisco Padial‐Molina, Miguel |
| description | Aim
To compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes.
Materials and methods
A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in need of bilateral two‐staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation were included. Each patient received both biomaterials (porcine bone mineral and anorganic bovine bone), which were randomly assigned for bilateral sinus augmentation. The maxillary autogenous bone scraped from the sinus access window was mixed with each xenograft at a 20:80 ratio. After a healing period of 6 months, bone biopsies were collected with a trephine during the implant placement in the regenerated area. Histologic, histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular outcomes were analyzed. Clinical and radiographical data throughout the treatment phases were also evaluated.
Results
The resulting anatomic features were similar between both groups. After six months of graft consolidation, the graft resorption rates were similar between both biomaterials. The histologic, histomorphometrical, and immunohistochemical results showed no statistical differences between groups.
Conclusion
Anorganic bovine bone and porcine bone mineral combined with maxillary autogenous cortical bone show similar biologic and radiologic features in terms of biomaterial resorption, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis when used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13912 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9313845</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2634537891</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4432-4f31f14da7128a10911b6119a089e2cd445c576e1a9eaeeb7df5e3b2bcd6ca643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokNhwQugSGzKIlPfOH_eIFUjCkiDkBCsLcdxUleOHexkOmXVR-AR4FV4lD5Jb2dKBUh44R_dz0f3nkPIc6BLwHWsbFgC45A9IAsoKU1pQeEhWVBOi7SCEg7IkxjPKaUlr_ljcsCKLMurql6Qnx_k1lgrw2USjZtj0lnvQyLnftBukpPxLlF-GGUwrk8avzFOJxsdIqKjD-r22Xjcttr5PshuislgtrpNLsx0hjqT77GC9I7aEcvk5NePOFozXV99H_yMXJCu9YP5hv-Ud1Pw1uJ1Ckbap-RRJ23Uz-7OQ_Ll9M3n1bt0_fHt-9XJOlV5zrI07xh0kLeygqyWQDlAUwJwSWuuM9XmeaGKqtQguZZaN1XbFZo1WaPaUskyZ4fk9V53nJtBtwrHD9KKMZgB3RFeGvF3xZkz0fuN4AxYnRcocHQnEPzXWcdJDCYqjeY6jQaIrGRIVTUHRF_-g577OTgcD6mSVpwXGUPq1Z5SwccYdHffDFBxG7zA4MUueGRf_Nn9Pfk7aQSO98CFsfry_0pitf60l7wBzH6_Pw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2660799523</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo ; Abril‐García, Dario ; Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen ; Zurita, Federico ; Martín‐Morales, Natividad ; O’Valle, Francisco ; Padial‐Molina, Miguel</creator><creatorcontrib>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo ; Abril‐García, Dario ; Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen ; Zurita, Federico ; Martín‐Morales, Natividad ; O’Valle, Francisco ; Padial‐Molina, Miguel</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
To compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes.
Materials and methods
A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in need of bilateral two‐staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation were included. Each patient received both biomaterials (porcine bone mineral and anorganic bovine bone), which were randomly assigned for bilateral sinus augmentation. The maxillary autogenous bone scraped from the sinus access window was mixed with each xenograft at a 20:80 ratio. After a healing period of 6 months, bone biopsies were collected with a trephine during the implant placement in the regenerated area. Histologic, histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular outcomes were analyzed. Clinical and radiographical data throughout the treatment phases were also evaluated.
Results
The resulting anatomic features were similar between both groups. After six months of graft consolidation, the graft resorption rates were similar between both biomaterials. The histologic, histomorphometrical, and immunohistochemical results showed no statistical differences between groups.
Conclusion
Anorganic bovine bone and porcine bone mineral combined with maxillary autogenous cortical bone show similar biologic and radiologic features in terms of biomaterial resorption, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis when used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13912</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35224778</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>anorganic bovine bone ; Augmentation ; Biomaterials ; Biomedical materials ; Biopsy ; bone biomaterial ; Bone biomaterials ; Bone grafts ; Bone healing ; Bone resorption ; Cattle ; Cortical bone ; Grafting ; Grafts ; implant dentistry ; Maxillary sinus ; maxillary sinus augmentation ; Original ; Osteoconduction ; Osteogenesis ; Patients ; porcine bone mineral ; Sinuses ; Substitute bone ; Surgical implants ; Xenografts ; Xenotransplantation</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.524-536</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4432-4f31f14da7128a10911b6119a089e2cd445c576e1a9eaeeb7df5e3b2bcd6ca643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4432-4f31f14da7128a10911b6119a089e2cd445c576e1a9eaeeb7df5e3b2bcd6ca643</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6222-1341 ; 0000-0001-9207-2287 ; 0000-0002-6614-6470 ; 0000-0003-3540-1085</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13912$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13912$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35224778$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abril‐García, Dario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zurita, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martín‐Morales, Natividad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Valle, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padial‐Molina, Miguel</creatorcontrib><title>Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Aim
To compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes.
Materials and methods
A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in need of bilateral two‐staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation were included. Each patient received both biomaterials (porcine bone mineral and anorganic bovine bone), which were randomly assigned for bilateral sinus augmentation. The maxillary autogenous bone scraped from the sinus access window was mixed with each xenograft at a 20:80 ratio. After a healing period of 6 months, bone biopsies were collected with a trephine during the implant placement in the regenerated area. Histologic, histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular outcomes were analyzed. Clinical and radiographical data throughout the treatment phases were also evaluated.
Results
The resulting anatomic features were similar between both groups. After six months of graft consolidation, the graft resorption rates were similar between both biomaterials. The histologic, histomorphometrical, and immunohistochemical results showed no statistical differences between groups.
Conclusion
Anorganic bovine bone and porcine bone mineral combined with maxillary autogenous cortical bone show similar biologic and radiologic features in terms of biomaterial resorption, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis when used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation.</description><subject>anorganic bovine bone</subject><subject>Augmentation</subject><subject>Biomaterials</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>bone biomaterial</subject><subject>Bone biomaterials</subject><subject>Bone grafts</subject><subject>Bone healing</subject><subject>Bone resorption</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cortical bone</subject><subject>Grafting</subject><subject>Grafts</subject><subject>implant dentistry</subject><subject>Maxillary sinus</subject><subject>maxillary sinus augmentation</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Osteoconduction</subject><subject>Osteogenesis</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>porcine bone mineral</subject><subject>Sinuses</subject><subject>Substitute bone</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Xenografts</subject><subject>Xenotransplantation</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokNhwQugSGzKIlPfOH_eIFUjCkiDkBCsLcdxUleOHexkOmXVR-AR4FV4lD5Jb2dKBUh44R_dz0f3nkPIc6BLwHWsbFgC45A9IAsoKU1pQeEhWVBOi7SCEg7IkxjPKaUlr_ljcsCKLMurql6Qnx_k1lgrw2USjZtj0lnvQyLnftBukpPxLlF-GGUwrk8avzFOJxsdIqKjD-r22Xjcttr5PshuislgtrpNLsx0hjqT77GC9I7aEcvk5NePOFozXV99H_yMXJCu9YP5hv-Ud1Pw1uJ1Ckbap-RRJ23Uz-7OQ_Ll9M3n1bt0_fHt-9XJOlV5zrI07xh0kLeygqyWQDlAUwJwSWuuM9XmeaGKqtQguZZaN1XbFZo1WaPaUskyZ4fk9V53nJtBtwrHD9KKMZgB3RFeGvF3xZkz0fuN4AxYnRcocHQnEPzXWcdJDCYqjeY6jQaIrGRIVTUHRF_-g577OTgcD6mSVpwXGUPq1Z5SwccYdHffDFBxG7zA4MUueGRf_Nn9Pfk7aQSO98CFsfry_0pitf60l7wBzH6_Pw</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo</creator><creator>Abril‐García, Dario</creator><creator>Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen</creator><creator>Zurita, Federico</creator><creator>Martín‐Morales, Natividad</creator><creator>O’Valle, Francisco</creator><creator>Padial‐Molina, Miguel</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6222-1341</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9207-2287</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-6470</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-1085</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial</title><author>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo ; Abril‐García, Dario ; Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen ; Zurita, Federico ; Martín‐Morales, Natividad ; O’Valle, Francisco ; Padial‐Molina, Miguel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4432-4f31f14da7128a10911b6119a089e2cd445c576e1a9eaeeb7df5e3b2bcd6ca643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>anorganic bovine bone</topic><topic>Augmentation</topic><topic>Biomaterials</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>bone biomaterial</topic><topic>Bone biomaterials</topic><topic>Bone grafts</topic><topic>Bone healing</topic><topic>Bone resorption</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cortical bone</topic><topic>Grafting</topic><topic>Grafts</topic><topic>implant dentistry</topic><topic>Maxillary sinus</topic><topic>maxillary sinus augmentation</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Osteoconduction</topic><topic>Osteogenesis</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>porcine bone mineral</topic><topic>Sinuses</topic><topic>Substitute bone</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Xenografts</topic><topic>Xenotransplantation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abril‐García, Dario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zurita, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martín‐Morales, Natividad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Valle, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padial‐Molina, Miguel</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Galindo‐Moreno, Pablo</au><au>Abril‐García, Dario</au><au>Carrillo‐Galvez, Ana Belen</au><au>Zurita, Federico</au><au>Martín‐Morales, Natividad</au><au>O’Valle, Francisco</au><au>Padial‐Molina, Miguel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>524</spage><epage>536</epage><pages>524-536</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Aim
To compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes.
Materials and methods
A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in need of bilateral two‐staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation were included. Each patient received both biomaterials (porcine bone mineral and anorganic bovine bone), which were randomly assigned for bilateral sinus augmentation. The maxillary autogenous bone scraped from the sinus access window was mixed with each xenograft at a 20:80 ratio. After a healing period of 6 months, bone biopsies were collected with a trephine during the implant placement in the regenerated area. Histologic, histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular outcomes were analyzed. Clinical and radiographical data throughout the treatment phases were also evaluated.
Results
The resulting anatomic features were similar between both groups. After six months of graft consolidation, the graft resorption rates were similar between both biomaterials. The histologic, histomorphometrical, and immunohistochemical results showed no statistical differences between groups.
Conclusion
Anorganic bovine bone and porcine bone mineral combined with maxillary autogenous cortical bone show similar biologic and radiologic features in terms of biomaterial resorption, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis when used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>35224778</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13912</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6222-1341</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9207-2287</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-6470</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-1085</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2022-05, Vol.33 (5), p.524-536 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9313845 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | anorganic bovine bone Augmentation Biomaterials Biomedical materials Biopsy bone biomaterial Bone biomaterials Bone grafts Bone healing Bone resorption Cattle Cortical bone Grafting Grafts implant dentistry Maxillary sinus maxillary sinus augmentation Original Osteoconduction Osteogenesis Patients porcine bone mineral Sinuses Substitute bone Surgical implants Xenografts Xenotransplantation |
| title | Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft. A split‐mouth randomized controlled trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T19%3A10%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Maxillary%20sinus%20floor%20augmentation%20comparing%20bovine%20versus%20porcine%20bone%20xenografts%20mixed%20with%20autogenous%20bone%20graft.%20A%C2%A0split%E2%80%90mouth%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Galindo%E2%80%90Moreno,%20Pablo&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=524&rft.epage=536&rft.pages=524-536&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13912&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2634537891%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2660799523&rft_id=info:pmid/35224778&rfr_iscdi=true |