View Item 

Show simple item record

Influence of Healing Period Upon Bone Turn Over on Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Grafted Solely with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: A Prospective Human Histological and Clinical Trial
dc.contributor.authorWang, Feng
dc.contributor.authorZhou, Wenjie
dc.contributor.authorMonje, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Wei
dc.contributor.authorWang, Yueping
dc.contributor.authorWu, Yiqun
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-14T15:10:45Z
dc.date.available2018-05-15T21:02:51Zen
dc.date.issued2017-04
dc.identifier.citationWang, Feng; Zhou, Wenjie; Monje, Alberto; Huang, Wei; Wang, Yueping; Wu, Yiqun (2017). "Influence of Healing Period Upon Bone Turn Over on Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Grafted Solely with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: A Prospective Human Histological and Clinical Trial." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 19(2): 341-350.
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899
dc.identifier.issn1708-8208
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/136437
dc.description.abstractPurposeTo investigate the influence of maturation timing upon histological, histomorphometric and clinical outcomes when deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) was used as a sole biomaterial for staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA).Materials and methodsPatients with a posterior edentulous maxillary situation and a vertical bone height ≤ 4 mm were included in this study. A staged MSFA was carried out. After MSFA with DBBM as a sole grafting material, biopsy cores were harvested with simultaneous implant placement followed by a healing period of 5, 8, and 11 months, respectively. Micro‐CT, histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed.ResultsForty‐one patients were enrolled and 38 bone core biopsies were harvested. Significantly greater BV/TV was observed between 5‐ and 8‐month healing from micro‐CT analysis. Histomorphometric analyses showed the ratio of mineralized newly formed bone increased slightly from 5 to 11 months; however, no statistically significant difference was reached (p = .409). Residual bone substitute decreased from 37.3 ± 5.04% to 20.6 ± 7.45%, achieving a statistical significant difference from of 5 up to 11 months (p < .01). Moreover, no implant failure, biological or technical complication occurred after 12‐month follow‐up of functional loading.ConclusionDBBM utilized as sole grafting material in staged MSFA demonstrated to be clinically effective regardless of the healing period. Histomorphometrical and micro‐CT assessments revealed that at later stages of healing (8 and 11 months) there is a higher proportion of newly‐bone formation compared to earlier stages (5 months). Moreover, the longer the maturation period, the substantially lesser remaining biomaterial could be expected. Even though, these facts did not seem to negatively impact on the implant prognosis 1‐year after loading.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherdeproteinized bovine bone mineral
dc.subject.otherhistological analyses
dc.subject.otherimplant survival rate
dc.subject.othermaxillary sinus floor augmentation
dc.titleInfluence of Healing Period Upon Bone Turn Over on Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Grafted Solely with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: A Prospective Human Histological and Clinical Trial
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136437/1/cid12463_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136437/2/cid12463.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.12463
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSrouji S, Ben‐David D, Funari A, et al. Evaluation of the osteoconductive potential of bone substitutes embedded with schneiderian membrane‐ or maxillary bone marrow‐derived osteoprogenitor cells. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 1288 – 1294.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalmer W, Crawford‐Sykes A, Rose RE. Donor site morbidity following iliac crest bone graft. West Indian Med J 2008; 57: 490 – 492.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBassil J, Naaman N, Lattouf R, et al. Clinical, histological, and histomorphometrical analysis of maxillary sinus augmentation using inorganic bovine in humans: preliminary results. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 73 – 80.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee DZ, Chen ST, Darby IB. Maxillary sinus floor elevation and grafting with deproteinized bovine bone mineral: a clinical and histomorphometric study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 918 – 924.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRong Q, Li X, Chen SL, et al. Effect of the Schneiderian membrane on the formation of bone after lifting the floor of the maxillary sinus: an experimental study in dogs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 53: 607 – 612.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHallman M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S. A clinical and histologic evaluation of implant integration in the posterior maxillar after sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone, bovine hydroxyapatite, or a 20:80 mixture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 635 – 643.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoldan JC, Knueppel H, Schmidt C, et al. Single‐stage sinus augmentation with cancellous iliac bone and anorganic bovine bone in the presence of platelet‐rich plasma in the miniature pig. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 373 – 378.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTatum H. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am 1986; 30: 207 – 229.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMombelli A, Lang NP. Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontol 2000 1994; 4: 81 – 86.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHämmerle CH, Chiantella GC, Karring T, et al. The effect of a deproteinized bovine bone mineral on bone regeneration around titanium dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 151 – 162.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, et al. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio‐Oss or Bio‐Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft in animals: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 114 – 120.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGruber R, Kandler B, Fuerst G, et al. Porcine sinus mucosa holds cells that respond to bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)−6 and BMP‐7 with increased osteogenic differentiation in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004 Oct; 15: 575 – 580.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSrouji S, Ben‐David D, Lotan R, et al. The innate osteogenic potential of the maxillary sinus (Schneiderian) membrane: an ectopic tissue transplant model simulating sinus lifting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 39: 793 – 801.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSrouji S, Kizhner T, Ben David D, et al. The Schneiderian membrane contains osteoprogenitor cells: in vivo and in vitro study. Calcif Tissue Int 2009; 84: 138 – 145.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScala A, Botticelli D, Rangel IG, Jr, et al. Early healing after elevation of the maxillary sinus floor applying a lateral access: a histological study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 1320 – 1326.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScala A, Botticelli D, Faeda RS, et al. 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 2012; 23: 175 – 181.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJungner M, Cricchio G, Salata LA, et al. On the early mechanisms of bone formation after maxillary sinus membrane elevation: an experimental histological and immunohistochemical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17: 1092 – 1102.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFavero V, Lang NP, Canullo L, et al. Sinus floor elevation outcomes following perforation of the Schneiderian membrane. An experimental study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 233 – 240.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Santis E, Lang NP, Ferreira S, et al. Healing at implants installed concurrently to maxillary sinus floor elevation with Bio‐Oss® or autologous bone grafts. A histomorphometric study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; doi: 10.1111/clr.12825.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaneva M, Lang NP, Garcia Rangel IJ, et al. Sinus mucosa elevation using Bio‐Oss® or Gingistat® collagen sponge: an experimental study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; doi: 10.1111/clr.12850.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSohn DS, Kim WS, An KM, Song KJ, Lee JM, Mun YS. Comparative histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus augmentation with and without bone grafting in rabbit. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 259 – 270.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcAllister BS, Margolin MD, Cogan AG, et al. Eighteen‐month radiographic and histologic evaluation of sinus grafting with anorganic bovine bone in the chimpanzee. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 361 – 368.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFurst G, Gruber R, Tangl S, et al. Sinus grafting with autogenous platelet‐rich plasma and bovine hydroxyapatite. A histomorphometric study in minipigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 500 – 508.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChanavaz M. Maxillary sinus: anatomy, physiology, surgery, and bone grafting related to implantology – eleven years of surgical experience (1979–1990). J Oral Implantol 1990; 16: 199 – 209.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBergh van den JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJM, et al. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 256 – 265.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEsposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; ( 5 ): CD008397.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChao YL, Chen HH, Mei CC, et al. Meta‐regression analysis of the initial bone height for predicting implant survival rates of two sinus elevation procedures. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 456 – 465.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 216 – 240.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNkenke E, Stelzle F. Clinical outcomes of sinus floor augmentation for implant place‐ ment using autogenous bone or bone sub‐ stitutes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 124 – 133.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGalindo‐Moreno P, Moreno‐Riestra I, Avila G, et al. Effect of anorganic bovine bone to autogenous cortical bone ratio upon bone remodeling patterns following maxillary sinus augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 857 – 864.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHallman M, Lundgren S, Sennerby L. Histologic analysis of clinical biopsies taken 6 months and 3 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with 80% bovine hydroxyapatite and 20% autogenous bone mixed with fibrin glue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3: 87 – 96.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMonje A, O’valle F, Monje‐Gil F, et al. Cellular, vascular, and histomorphometric outcomes of solvent‐dehydrated vs freeze‐dried allogeneic graft for maxillary sinus augmentation: a randomized case series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016 Aug 15. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4801.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceXu H, Shimizu Y, Asai S, et al. Grafting of deproteinized bone particles inhibits bone resorption after maxillary sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 126 – 133.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGalindo‐Moreno P, Hernandez‐Cortes P, Aneiros‐Fernandez J, et al. Morphological evidences of Bio‐Oss(R) colonization by CD44‐positive cells. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 366 – 371.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
cid12463_am.pdf
Size:
1.188MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
cid12463.pdf
Size:
493.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.