Osseointegration of different implant surfaces in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone associated or not with fresh bone marrow-Preclinical study in rabbits

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous hydrophilic implants placement: A retrospective study of 2-5 years

AIMS

To investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a chemically modified sandblasted large-grit acid-etched implant (hydrophilic) in lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE), compared with a conventional one (hydrophobic).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study design was adopted. Patients who received LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were recruited. According to different types of implant surfaces, patients were divided into two groups (the hydrophilic group and the hydrophobic group). Implant survival rate (SR), endo-sinus bone stability on the radiographs, mean probing depths, percentage of bleeding on probing, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients with 180 implants (hydrophilic:101, hydrophobic:79) in 119 maxillary sinuses were included. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 5 years. Three hydrophobic implants and one hydrophilic implant in four different patients failed. The SR of the hydrophilic group was higher than that of the hydrophobic group but without a significant difference (p > .05). The change and change rate of endo-sinus bone height (ΔESBH and RΔESBH) and bone volume (ΔESBV and RΔESBV) in the hydrophilic group were less than those in the hydrophobic group, with a significant difference at 6 months after implantation. No other significant difference was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, both hydrophilic and hydrophobic implants were suitable for LSFE with predictable clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, hydrophilic implants could contribute to the grafted endo-sinus bone stability during healing time.

Osseointegration Potential Assessment of Bone Graft Materials Loaded with Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Peri-Implant Bone Defects

Many studies have been exploring the use of bone graft materials (BGMs) and mesenchymal stem cells in bone defect reconstruction. However, the regeneration potential of Algipore (highly purified hydroxyapatite) and Biphasic (hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate) BGMs combined with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated their osseointegration capacities in reconstructing peri-implant bone defects. The cellular characteristics of BMSCs and the material properties of Algipore and Biphasic were assessed in vitro. Four experimental groups-Algipore, Biphasic, Algipore+BMSCs, and Biphasic+BMSCs-were designed in a rabbit tibia peri-implant defect model. Implant stability parameters were measured. After 4 and 8 weeks of healing, all samples were evaluated using micro-CT, histological, and histomorphometric analysis. In the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy experiment, the Ca/P ratio was higher for Algipore (1.67) than for Biphasic (1.44). The ISQ values continuously increased, and the PTV values gradually decreased for all groups during the healing period. Both Algipore and Biphasic BGM promoted new bone regeneration. Higher implant stability and bone volume density were observed when Algipore and Biphasic BGMs were combined with BMSCs. Biphasic BGM exhibited a faster degradation rate than Algipore BGM. Notably, after eight weeks of healing, Algipore with BSMCs showed more bone-implant contact than Biphasic alone (p < 0.05). Both Algipore and Biphasic are efficient in reconstructing peri-implant bone defects. In addition, Algipore BGM incorporation with BSMCs displayed the best performance in enhancing implant stability and osseointegration potential.

Evaluation of mandibular bone changes in multiple myeloma patients on dental panoramic radiographs

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the mandibular bone structures of multiple myeloma (MM) patients on panoramic radiographs using fractal analysis (FA) and radio-morphometric indices.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 67 MM patients, and the control group consisted of 67 individuals without any systemic disease. The mandibular cortical index (MCI) classification, antegonial index (AGI), gonial index (GI), mandibular cortical width (MCW), panoramic mandibular index (PMI) and fractal dimensions (FD) were evaluated on panoramic radiographs. FD measurements were made by identifying 4 related areas. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normal distribution of the data. Chi-square and independent t tests were used to compare the findings between the two groups.

RESULTS

The FD values of the study group in ROI1, ROI2, ROI3, ROI4 regions and GI values were found to be statistically significantly lower than the control group (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of AGI, MCW and PMI values (p > 0.05). While C1 was the most common type in the control group, C2 was the most common type in the study group. C2 and C3 were detected more in the study group than in the control group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed a consensus with the studies advocating that fractal analysis and radio-morphometric indices are methods that can be used to determine mandibular bone density. The low bone density of MM patients is a condition that physicians should be aware of for interventional dental procedures.