PMID- 31170275
OWN - NLM
STAT- Publisher
LR  - 20240227
IS  - 1942-4434 (Electronic)
IS  - 0882-2786 (Linking)
DP  - 2019 Feb 26
TI  - Histomorphometric Analysis of Maxillary Sinus Grafts: A Pilot Study.
LID - 10.11607/jomi.6218 [doi]
AB  - PURPOSE: This pilot study evaluated and compared the degree of new bone formation 
      following maxillary sinus graft (MSG) using three different bone graft materials. 
      MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with an edentulous posterior maxilla (unilateral 
      or bilateral) were included in this study and underwent a two-stage procedure. 
      Each sinus was randomly assigned one of the three graft materials: anorganic 
      bovine bone mineral (ABBM), anorganic equine bone mineral (AEBM), or mineralized 
      cancellous bone allograft (MCBA). Bone core samples were obtained from the 
      lateral wall of the grafted sites at least 8 months after MSG. Bone quality was 
      evaluated during bone core retrieval. The samples were histomorphometrically 
      analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn-Bonferroni tests at the significance level 
      of alpha = .05. RESULTS: A total of 28 sinuses (14 unilateral and 7 bilateral) from 
      21 subjects, with a mean age of 61.5 (range, 33-75) years, were included in the 
      study. Twenty-eight bone cores (ABBM [n = 9], AEBM [n = 9], and MCBA [n = 10]) 
      were obtained at a mean healing time of 9.1 (range, 8-12) months. Six maxillary 
      sinus membrane perforations (</= 5 mm) were noted and repaired during surgery 
      (21.4%). Histomorphometric analysis of the harvested bone cores revealed 
      statistically significant differences in the percentage of vital bone (VB%), 
      residual bone materials (RBM%), and connective tissue/marrow (CT%) among the 
      different graft materials (Kruskal-Wallis; P < .05). The VB% in the MCBA group 
      (32.0% +/- 12.4%) was significantly greater than those in the ABBM (10.9% +/- 8.9%) 
      and AEBM (9.1% +/- 5.9%) groups (P < .05). The RBM% in the MCBA group (5.5% +/- 5.7%) 
      was, however, significantly less than those in the ABBM (34.3% +/- 12.1%) and AEBM 
      (38.9% +/- 5.3%) groups (P < .05). There were no significant differences in VB% and 
      RBM% between ABBM and AEBM (P = 1.0). Newly formed bone and residual graft 
      materials were integrated into the surrounding tissue with no sign of 
      inflammation or foreign-body reaction. CONCLUSION: Within the confines of the 
      study, MCBA has significantly greater new bone formation than ABBM and AEBM. AEBM 
      showed comparable histomorphometric results in all parameters (VB%, RBM%, CT%) to 
      ABBM.
FAU - Nishimoto, Mina
AU  - Nishimoto M
FAU - Kan, Joseph Ky
AU  - Kan JK
FAU - Rungcharassaeng, Kitichai
AU  - Rungcharassaeng K
FAU - Roe, Phillip
AU  - Roe P
FAU - Lozada, Jaime L
AU  - Lozada JL
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20190226
PL  - United States
TA  - Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
JT  - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
JID - 8611905
EDAT- 2019/06/07 06:00
MHDA- 2019/06/07 06:00
CRDT- 2019/06/07 06:00
PHST- 2019/06/07 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2019/06/07 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2019/06/07 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.11607/jomi.6213 [doi]
PST - aheadofprint
SO  - Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Feb 26. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6213.