Effect of two different healing times on the mineralization of newly formed bone using a bovine bone substitute in sinus floor augmentation: a randomized, controlled, clinical and histological investigation

Comparison of two anorganic bovine bone in maxillary sinus lift: a split-mouth study with clinical, radiographical, and histomorphometrical analysis

Background

Anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss®) has been extensively used for reconstruction of posterior area of maxilla in sinus lift procedure; however, a new graft material (Lumina-Bone Porous®), that has a different manufacturing process, has not been yet compared in clinical and histological terms. The manufacturing process of bovine bone graft is related to size and porosity of the particles, and this can change osteoconductive property of the material and bone formation. The use of Lumina-Porus® could improve bone formation, reduce the remaining particles of the biomaterial using a low-cost material. The aim of this research was to compare the clinical, radiological, and histomorphometrical results from maxillary sinus lift with two different anorganic bovine bone substitutes Bio-Oss® (control) and Lumina-Bone Porous® (test).

Results

A split-mouth study was performed with 13 volunteers. The mean bone ridge height in the deepest portion of maxillary sinuses floor was 3.11 ± 0.83 mm in the Bio-Oss® and 2.38 ± 0.75 mm in the Lumina-Bone Porous®. After sinus lift, the Bio-Oss® group shows bone ridge height of 11.56 ± 2.03 mm and Lumina-Bone® of 10.62 ± 1.93 mm. The increase in alveolar bone height scores was significant between pre-augmentation and 6 months after SL in both groups (p < 0.001). No statistical significant difference in newly formed bone in the Bio-Oss® group (20.4 ± 5.4%), and Lumina-Bone Porous® (22.8 ± 8.5%) was histomorphological observed (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the residual graft particles showed significant difference between the Bio-Oss® group (19.9 ± 8.6%) and Lumina-Bone Porous® (14.6 ± 5.6%) (p < 0.05). The survival rate of dental implants for augmented area with Lumina Bone Porous® was 88.88%, while for Bio-Oss® group was 100%.

Conclusion

Both materials Bio-Oss® and Lumina-Bone Porous® can be used in the maxillary sinus floor augmentation with good predictability in clinical, radiographical, and histological point of view.

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Nanostructured Carbonated Hydroxyapatite for Alveolar Bone Repair

The properties of the biodegradation of bone substitutes in the dental socket after extraction is one of the goals of regenerative medicine. This double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of a new bioabsorbable nanostructured carbonated hydroxyapatite (CHA) with a commercially available bovine xenograft (Bio-Oss®) and clot (control group) in alveolar preservation. Thirty participants who required tooth extraction and implant placement were enrolled in this study. After 90 days, a sample of the grafted area was obtained for histological and histomorphometric evaluation and an implant was installed at the site. All surgical procedures were successfully carried out without complications and none of the patients were excluded. The samples revealed a statistically significant increase of new bone formation (NFB) in the CHA group compared with Bio-Oss® after 90 days from surgery (p < 0.05). However, the clot group presented no differences of NFB compared to CHA and Bio-Oss®. The CHA group presented less amount of reminiscent biomaterial compared to Bio-Oss®. Both biomaterials were considered osteoconductors, easy to handle, biocompatible, and suitable for alveolar filling. Nanostructured carbonated hydroxyapatite spheres promoted a higher biodegradation rate and is a promising biomaterial for alveolar socket preservation before implant treatment.

In vitro and in vivo assessment of CaP materials for bone regenerative therapy. The role of multinucleated giant cells/osteoclasts in bone regeneration

In this work, bone formation/remodeling/maturation was correlated with the presence of multinucleated giant cells (MGCs)/osteoclasts (tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase [TRAP]-positive cells) on the surface of beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), sintered deproteinized bovine bone (sDBB), and carbonated deproteinized bovine bone (cDBB) using a maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) in a New Zealand rabbit model. Microtomographic, histomorphometric, and immunolabeling for TRAP-cells analyses were made at 15, 30, and 60 days after surgery. In all treatments, a faster bone formation/remodeling/maturation and TRAP-positive cells activity occurred in the osteotomy region of the MSA than in the middle and submucosa regions. In the β-TCP, the granules were rapidly reabsorbed by TRAP-positive cells and replaced by bone tissue. β-TCP enabled quick bone regeneration/remodeling and full bone and marrow restoration until 60 days, but with a significant reduction in MSA volume. In cDBB and sDBB, the quantity of TRAP-positive cells was smaller than in β-TCP, and these cells were associated with granule surface preparation for osteoblast-mediated bone formation. After 30 days, more than 80% of granule surfaces were surrounded and integrated by bone tissue without signs of degradation, preserving the MSA volume. Overall, the materials tested in a standardized preclinical model led to different bone formation/remodeling/maturation within the same repair process influenced by different microenvironments and MGCs/osteoclasts. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 108B:282-297, 2020.

Guided maxillary sinus floor elevation using deproteinized bovine bone versus graftless Schneiderian membrane elevation with simultaneous implant placement: Randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the analytical difference between the use of xenograft (control group) and graftless tenting (test group) technique after sinus lift procedure with simultaneous implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients and 20 sinuses where operated for sinus lift procedures using lateral window approach with simultaneous implant placement. Deproteinized bovine bone (Xenograft) was used as a filling material in control group while nongrafted sinus lifting was performed in the test group. Multislice CT was obtained preoperatively and CBCT were obtained immediately postoperative and 6 months after operation. Osstell readings were taken at the time of implant placement and implant exposure (6 months) RESULTS: Mean bone height gain in the xenograft group was 8.59 ± 0.74 while that of the tenting group was 4.85 ± 0.5 and it was statistically significant (P < .05). Mean bone density values in the xenograft group was 375.59 ± 49.38 while that of the tenting group was 269.08 ± 16.27 and it was statistically significant (P < .05). Mean ISQ values for the xenograft group was 78.3 ± 5.08 while that of the tenting group was 74 ± 3.19 and it was statistically significant (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, sinus lift procedures with simultaneous implant placement using xenograft as a filling material or graftless technique are considered reliable procedures, however, the use of xenograft provide better results in all aspects regarding (bone height gain, bone density, and implant stability).

In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed Polycaprolactone Scaffold Implantation Combined with β-TCP Powder for Alveolar Bone Augmentation in a Beagle Defect Model

Insufficient bone volume is one of the major challenges encountered by dentists after dental implant placement. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a customized three-dimensional polycaprolactone (3D PCL) scaffold implant fabricated with a 3D bio-printing system to facilitate rapid alveolar bone regeneration. Saddle-type bone defects were surgically created on the healed site after extracting premolars from the mandibles of four beagle dogs. The defects were radiologically examined using computed tomography for designing a customized 3D PCL scaffold block to fit the defect site. After fabricating 3D PCL scaffolds using rapid prototyping, the scaffolds were implanted into the alveolar bone defects along with β-tricalcium phosphate powder. In vivo analysis showed that the PCL blocks maintained the physical space and bone conductivity around the defects. In addition, no inflammatory infiltrates were observed around the scaffolds. However, new bone formation occurred adjacent to the scaffolds, rather than directly in contact with them. More new bone was observed around PCL blocks with 400/1200 lattices than around blocks with 400/400 lattices, but the difference was not significant. These results indicated the potential of 3D-printed porous PCL scaffolds to promote alveolar bone regeneration for defect healing in dentistry.

Maxillary sinus augmentation with leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin and deproteinized bovine bone mineral: A split-mouth histological and histomorphometric study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) on bone regeneration in maxillary sinus augmentation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirteen patients (nine males and four females, mean age ± SD; 49.92 ± 10.37) were enrolled to the study. 26 maxillary sinus augmentation procedures were randomly performed using DBBM and L-PRF mixture (test) or DBBM alone (control) in a split-mouth design. The same surgical procedures were performed in both groups, and bone biopsies were harvested from the implant sites 6 months postoperatively for histological and histomorphometric evaluations as the primary outcome of the study. Implants were placed and then loaded in the augmented sites after 6 months. The secondary outcomes included clinical and radiographic data and were obtained pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was no qualitative difference in histological analyses among the groups. In all samples, a newly formed bone was in direct contact with the residual material. The percentages of newly formed bone (test; 21.38 ± 8.78% and control; 21.25 ± 5.59%), residual bone graft (test; 25.95 ± 9.54% and control; 32.79 ± 5.89%), bone graft in contact with the newly formed bone (test; 47.33 ± 12.33% and control; 54.04 ± 8.36%), and soft tissue (test; 52.67 ± 12.53% and control; 45.96 ± 8.36%) were similar among the groups (p < .05). Similar radiographic bone height in the augmented area was observed, and implant survival rate was 100% for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques were effective for maxillary sinus augmentation, and after 6 months of healing, the addition of L-PRF in DBBM did not improve the amount of regenerated bone or the amount of the graft integrated into the newly formed bone under histological and histomorphometric evaluation.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

It is clear the contemporary dentist is confronted with a blizzard of information regarding materials and techniques from journal articles, advertisements, newsletters, the internet, and continuing education events. While some of that information is sound and helpful, much of it is misleading at best.

PURPOSE

This review identifies and discusses the most important scientific findings regarding outcomes of dental treatment to assist the practitioner in making evidence-based choices. This review was conducted to assist the busy dentist in keeping abreast of the latest scientific information regarding the clinical practice of dentistry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Each of the authors, who are considered experts in their disciplines, was asked to peruse the scientific literature published in 2015 in their discipline and review the articles for important information that may have an impact on treatment decisions. Comments on experimental methodology, statistical evaluation, and overall validity of the conclusions are included in many of the reviews.

RESULTS

The reviews are not meant to stand alone but are intended to inform the interested reader about what has been discovered in the past year. The readers are then invited to go to the source if they wish more detail.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the scientific literature published in 2015 is divided into 7 sections, dental materials, periodontics, prosthodontics, occlusion and temporomandibular disorders, sleep-disordered breathing, cariology, and implant dentistry.