[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 3, Issue 1 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences winter 2018) ::
J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci 2018, 3(1): 21-26 Back to browse issues page
Comparison of Implant Stability in Sinus Lift Surgery Using Autogenous Versus Allogeneic Bone Grafts
M Sezavar1, B Bohluli2, M Chehelamiran3, S Danesh3, A Shahriar4, Z Malekpour *5
1- Assistant Professor of OMFS Department, Craniomaxillofacial Research Center,Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Dental Branch of Terhan, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran., Dental Branch of Terhan, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- DDS, Dental Branch of Terhan, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4- OMFS Department, Babol Medical University, Dental Branch, Babol, Iran, Babol Medical University, Dental Branch, Babol, Iran
5- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Dept, Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Dental Branch of Terhan, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , ta_malekpour@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (482 Views)
Background and aim: The most common method of increasing implant stability in the posterior maxilla comprises the reinforcement of bone height using bone grafts in sinus lift surgery. The purpose of the present study was to compare autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts in implant stability after open sinus lift surgery.
Materials and methods: This split-mouth clinical trial compared the implant stability in 10 patients who needed bilateral open sinus lifts, including 8 men and 2 women. Each side of each patient's jaw was assigned to either case or control groups. Open sinus lift was performed on both sides of the jaw: autogenous bone graft was used on the side considered as the control, while allogeneic bone graft was used on the side assigned to the case group. After four months, the implant stability was evaluated and recorded in each group using the Periotest® system.
Results: The mean value related to implant stability was -2.78±2.31 in the control group and -3.19±2.51 in the case group. The values below zero (negative values) indicate an acceptable stability. According to Mann-U-Whitney test, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05); however, the intragroup analysis using Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant results with regard to implant stability in each group (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Based on the results, autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts have similar effects on implant stability after open sinus lift surgery, and both bone grafts provide a suitable implant durability.
Keywords: Bone Transplantation, Bone Substitutes, Dental Implant, Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation
Full-Text [PDF 131 kb]   (236 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (7 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article |
* Corresponding Author Address: Dental Branch of Terhan, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
1. Pozzi A, Sannino G, Barlattani A. Minimally invasive treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla: a proof-of-concept prospective study with a follow-up of between 36 and 54 months. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Nov;108(5):286-97.
2. Park D, Spencer JA, Koh BI, Kobayashi T, Fujisaki J, Clemens TL, et al. Endogenous bone marrow MSCs are dynamic, fate-restricted participants in bone maintenance and regeneration. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10(3):259–72.
3. Pisoni L, Lucchi A, Persia M, Marchi O, Ordesi P, Siervo S. Sinus lift: 3 years follow up comparing autogenous bone block versus autogenous particulated grafts. Journal of Dental Sciences (2016)11,231-7.
4. Cardoso CL., Curra C, Santos PL., Rodrigues MF.M., Ferreira-Júnior O, de Carvalho PS.P. Current considerations on bone substitutes in maxillary sinus lifting. Rev Clin Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral. 2016;9(2):102-7.
5. Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, Califano L, Bufo P, Sbordone L. Volume changes of autogenous bone after sinus lifting and grafting procedures: a 6-year computerized tomographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;41(3):235-41.
6. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980 Aug;38(8):613-6.
7. Falah M, Sohn DS, Srouji S. Graftless sinus augmentation with simultaneous dental implant placement: clinical results and biological perspectives. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;45(9):1147-53.
8. Altintas NY, Senel FC, Kayipmaz S, Taskesen F, Pampu AA. Comparative radiologic analyses of newly formed bone after maxillary sinus augmentation with and without bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(9):1520–30.
9. Moon JW, Sohn DS, Heo JU. Histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus augmentation with calcium phosphate nanocrystal-coated xenograft. Implant Dent. 2015 Jun;24(3):333-7.
10. Lindhe J, Nyman S, Ericsson I, Lindhe J, Lang N, Karring T. Trauma from occlusion: Periodontal tissues. Lindhe J, Lang NP, Karring T Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry 5th ed Oxford: Blackwell Munksgaard. 2008:363-73.
11. Marx RE. Platelet-rich plasma: evidence to support its use. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Apr;62(4):489-96.
12. Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2000;371:10-27. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb;(371):10-27.
13. De Coster P, Browaeys H, De Bruyn H. Healing of extraction sockets filled with BoneCeramic® prior to implant placement: preliminary histological findings. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011 Mar;13(1):34-45.
14. Esposito M, Grusonvin MG, Rees J, Karasoulos D, Felice P, Alissa R,et al. Effectiveness of sinus lift procedures for dental implant rehabilitation: a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010 Spring;3(1):7-26.
15. Wainwright M, Torres-Lagares D, Pérez-Dorao B, Serrera-Figallo MA, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Troedhan A, et al. Histological and histomorphometric study using an ultrasonic crestal sinus grafting procedure. A multicenter case study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 May 1;21(3):e367-73.
16. Bornstein MM, Chappuis V, von Arx T, Buser D. Performance of dental implants after staged sinus floor elevation procedures: 5-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Oct;19(10):1034-43.
17. Troedhan A, Kurrek A, Wainwright M. Biological Principles and Physiology of Bone Regeneration under the Schneiderian Membrane after Sinus Lift Surgery: A Radiological Study in 14 Patients Treated with the Transcrestal Hydrodynamic Ultrasonic Cavitational Sinus Lift (Intralift). Int J Dent. 2012;2012:576238.
18. Raja SV. Management of the posterior maxilla with sinus lift: review of techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Aug;67(8):1730-4.
19. Jank S, Kurrek A, Wainwright M, Bek VE, Troedhan A. Rupture length of the sinus membrane after 1.2 mm puncture and surgical sinus elevation: an experimental animal cadaver study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Nov;112(5):568-72.
20. Johansson LA, Isaksson S, Lindh C, Becktor JP, Sennerby L. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation and simultaneous implant placement using locally harvested autogenous bone chips and bone debris: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Apr;68(4):837-44.
21. Velázquez-Cayón R, Romero-Ruiz MM, Torres-Lagares D, Pérez-Dorao B, Wainwright M, Abalos-Labruzzi C, et al. Hydrodynamic ultrasonic maxillary sinus lift: review of a new technique and presentation of a clinical case. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 Mar 1;17(2):e271-5.
22. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK. Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22 Suppl:49-70.
23. Sakkas A, Wilde F, Heufelder M, Winter K, Schramm A . Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology-is it still a "gold standard"? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures. Int J Implant Dent. 2017 Dec;3(1):23.
24. Beretta M, Cicciù M, Poli PP, Rancitelli D, Bassi G, Grossi GB, et al. A Retrospective Evaluation of 192 Implants Placed in Augmented Bone: Long-Term Follow-Up Study. J Oral Implantol. 2015 Dec;41(6):669-74.
25. Pistilli R, Felice P, Piatelli M, Nisii A, Barausse C, Esposito M. Blocks of autogenous bone versus xenografts for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants: preliminary data from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7(2):153-71.
26. Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Dias Pereira LA, Marcantonio E Jr, Wenzel A. Fate of autologous and fresh-frozen allogeneic block bone grafts used for ridge augmentation. A CBCT-based analysis Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Feb;24(2):167-73.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sezavar M, Bohluli B, Chehelamiran M, Danesh S, Shahriar A, Malekpour Z. Comparison of Implant Stability in Sinus Lift Surgery Using Autogenous Versus Allogeneic Bone Grafts. J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2018; 3 (1) :21-26
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-178-en.html

Volume 3, Issue 1 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences winter 2018) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3877