Sinus augmentation analysis of the gradient of graft consolidation: a split-mouth histomorphometric study
- 114 Downloads
The aim of this study was to histomorphometrically test the hypothesis that graft consolidation originates from the sinus floor.
Materials and methods
This prospective, randomized split-mouth study investigated patients undergoing bilateral maxillary lateral sinus floor augmentation using either freeze-dried bone allografts (FDBAs) or biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) bone substitute. Apico-coronal core biopsies were harvested during implant placement 9 months after sinus floor augmentation, processed for histological observation, and measured histomorphometrically.
Biopsies were taken from 26 bilateral sites in 13 patients. The density of new bone (NB) decreased with increasing distance from the sinus floor. The percentage mean surface of NB ranged from 31 ± 9.5% at 2 mm from the sinus floor (G1) to 27.7 ± 11.2% at 4 mm (G2) for the FDBA specimens and from 30.0 ± 11.0% at G1 to 23.5 ± 9.9% at G2 for the BCP specimens. Evaluation of the residual graft particle (GP) area alone as a function of distance from the floor revealed a clear inverse gradient of 7.1 ± 6.6 to 9.1 ± 10.3 between G1 and G2 for the FDBA allografts, with the same tendency for the BCP alloplasts (21.9 ± 9.9 to 27.7 ± 6.6, respectively).
Our results support the concept that osteogenesis initiates in regions proximal to the bony walls of the maxillary sinus and may be enhanced by them.
The nature of the grafting material had a greater influence on the degree of NB formation in regions distant from the native walls where there is reduced inherent osteogenic potential.
KeywordsBiomaterials Sinus floor elevation Bone substitute Native bone Gradient
The authors wish to thank Prof. Marilena Vered, head of the Department of Oral Pathology at Tel-Aviv University for her help, Ms. Esther Eshkol for editorial assistance, and Ilana Gerlatner from the Department of Biostatistics, Tel-Aviv University.
Roni Kolerman—Sinus floor elevation, implant placement, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, manuscript writing and revision.
Joseph Nissan—Study concept/design, data analysis.
Marina Rahmanov—Histomorphometric measurements.
José Luis Calvo-Guirado—Critical revision of the manuscript.
Nirit Tager Green—Study concept/design, critical revision of the manuscript.
Tal Haim—Study concept/design, critical revision of the manuscript.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This study was partially supported by the Gerald A. Niznick Chair of Implantology at Tel-Aviv University.
Compliance with ethical standards
All participants signed a consent form after being fully informed about the nature of the procedure. The ethics committee of Tel-Aviv University approved the study protocol.
Conflicts of interest
I, Roni Kolerman, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
I, Joseph Nissan, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
I, Marina Rahmanov, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
I, Calvo Guirado Luis, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
I, Nirit Tagger Green, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
I, Haim Tal, hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in this study are in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 8.Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ (1998) Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:11–45Google Scholar
- 10.Schenk RK, Buser D, Hardwick WR, Dahlin C (1994) Healing pattern of bone regeneration in membrane-protected defects: a histologic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9:13–29Google Scholar
- 11.Mellonig JT (1995) Donor selection, testing, and inactivation of the HIV virus in freeze-dried bone allografts. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 7:13–22Google Scholar
- 15.Kolerman R, Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Barnea E, Tal H (2012) Histomorphometric analysis of newly formed bone after bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation using two different osteoconductive materials and internal collagen membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 32:e21–e28Google Scholar
- 17.Ham AW, Harris WR (1971) Repair and transplantation of bone. In: Bourne GH (ed) The biochemistry and physiology of bone. Academic Press, New York, pp 337–399Google Scholar
- 18.Schenk R (1987) Cytodynamics and histodynamics of primary bone repair. In: Lane JM (ed) Fracture healing. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 23–32Google Scholar
- 21.Burchardt H (1983) The biology of bone graft repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 174:28–42Google Scholar
- 25.Scala A, Botticelli D, Faeda RS, Garcia Rangel I Jr, Americo de Oliveira J, Lang NP (2012) Lack of influence of the schneiderian membrane in forming new bone apical to implants simultaneously installed with sinus floor elevation: an experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Margolin MD, Cogan AG, Taylor M, Buck D, McAllister TN, Toth C, McAllister BS (1998) Maxillary sinus augmentation in the nonhuman primate: a comparative radiographic and histologic study between recombinant human osteogenic protein-1 and natural bone mineral. J Periodontol 69:911–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Boyne PJ, Marx RE, Nevins M, Triplett G, Lazaro E, Lilly LC, Alder M, Nummikoski P (1997) A feasibility study evaluating rhbmp-2/absorbable collagen sponge for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:11–25Google Scholar
- 32.Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Rohrer MD, Cho SC (2000) Histologic and clinical comparison of bilateral sinus floor elevations with and without barrier membrane placement in 12 patients: part 3 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20:117–125Google Scholar
- 33.Tawil G, Mawla M (2001) Sinus floor elevation using a bovine bone mineral (bio-Oss) with or without the concomitant use of a bilayered collagen barrier (bio-Gide): a clinical report of immediate and delayed implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:713–721Google Scholar
- 35.Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Fienitz T, Smeets R, Dreiseidler T, Ritter L, Happe A, Zöller J (2012) Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:146–154Google Scholar
- 36.Avera SP, Stampley WA, McAllister BS (1997) Histologic and clinical observations of resorbable and nonresorbable barrier membranes used in maxillary sinus graft containment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:88–94Google Scholar
- 38.Sakkas A, Konstantinidis I, Winter K, Schramm A, Wilde F (2016) Effect of schneiderian membrane perforation on sinus lift graft outcome using two different donor sites: a retrospective study of 105 maxillary sinus elevation procedures. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 5:Doc11Google Scholar
- 42.Seung-Jun S, Hung Wung B, Jae-Hong L, Yong-Gun K (2015) Bone dynamics in the upward direction after a maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure: serial segmentation using synchrotron radiation micro-computed tomography. Int J Nanomedicine 10(Special Issue on diverse applications in Nano-Theranostics):129–136Google Scholar