Histomorphometrical Assessment of Sinus Augmentation Using Allograft (Particles or Block) and Simultaneous Implant Placement

Liat Chaushu,Sarit Naishlos,Roni Kolerman,Joseph Nissan,Marilena Vered,Gavriel Chaushu

doi:10.1038/s41598-020-65874-5

Liat Chaushu, Sarit Naishlos + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65874-5

Copy DOI

Journal: Scientific Reports	Publication Date: Jun 3, 2020
Citations: 3	License type: open-access

Affiliation: Tel Aviv University, Rabin Medical Center

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical, radiological and histomorphometrical outcome of simultaneous implant placement following augmentation of atrophic maxillary sinuses using allograft (block or particles). Consecutive patients with maxillary residual alveolar ridge height ≤3 mm, scheduled for sinus floor augmentation with simultaneous implant placement, were randomly included. Allograft bone-block or bone-particles served as grafting material. Simultaneously, dental implants were inserted. Biopsies were taken at second stage surgery (after 9 months) for histomorphometric evaluation. Initially 38 sinus augmentations (29 individuals) were allocated for the study. In 4 out of 21(19%) sinuses using particles it was impossible to stabilize the implants and a second stage insertion was preferred, leaving 34 sinuses for histomorphometric evaluation. The difference in the ability to perform simultaneous implant placement was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Ninety implants were inserted simultaneously. All implants osseointegrated. None of the implants was lost up to the end of follow-up time (Range 50–120 months, Mean 74.5 ± 13.5 months). Bone gain radiographically 12.3 ± 1 mm vs. 11.2 ± 1 mm (block vs. particles respectively) and new bone formation histomorphometrically 27.7 ± 15% vs. 32.1 ± 19% (block vs. particles respectively) showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Sinus augmentation using allograft (particles or block) and simultaneous implant placement is predictable. All outcome parameters are similar when sinus bone-blocks augmentation is compared to bone-particles augmentation (radiological new bone gain, implant survival, hisomorphometricly new bone formation) despite the ability to stabilize implants, when placed simultaneously with sinus augmentation. Blocks may be advisable when simultaneous implant placement is imperative in cases with residual alveolar bone height ≤3 mm.

Highlights

Maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement was initially limited to cases with minimum of 4–5 mm alveolar bone height
The present study assessed the ability of simultaneously implant placement and histomorphometric outcome following the augmentation of extremely atrophic maxillary sinuses with using allograft
Sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement yielded 81% vs

Summary

Introduction

Maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement was initially limited to cases with minimum of 4–5 mm alveolar bone height. This arbitrary limit was chosen as the minimum required for initial implant stability[1,2,3]. Block bone grafts may provide structural rigidity Such rigidity may contribute to implant stability independent of the residual alveolar bone height[6]. A major drawback for using autografts is donor site morbidity[9,10,11]. The present study assessed the ability of simultaneously implant placement and histomorphometric outcome following the augmentation of extremely (residual alveolar ridge height ≤3 mm) atrophic maxillary sinuses with using allograft (block or particles)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion