Premium
Histopathological comparison of healing after maxillary sinus augmentation using xenograft mixed with autogenous bone versus allograft mixed with autogenous bone
Author(s) -
GalindoMoreno Pablo,
Buitrago Juan G.,
PadialMolina Miguel,
FernándezBarbero Juan Emilio,
AtaAli Javier,
O′Valle Francisco
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13098
Subject(s) - medicine , maxillary sinus , osteoid , sinus (botany) , stromal cell , immunohistochemistry , mesenchymal stem cell , transplantation , dentistry , implant , bone healing , urology , pathology , surgery , botany , biology , genus
Abstract Objective To compare the clinical and histologic outcomes of two different grafting materials (allograft and xenograft) when combined with autogenous bone and covered with a collagen membrane for sinus augmentation. Material and Methods A parallel case series of fourteen patients in need of a unilateral sinus augmentation was evaluated in this study. Seven patients received a graft composed by autologous cortical bone (ACB) and anorganic bovine bone in a ratio of 1:1; the other seven patients received ACB mixed with an allograft in the same ratio. Bone biopsies were obtained 6 months after sinus augmentation at the time of implant placement. Comparative histomorphometrical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical analyses were conducted and statistically analyzed. Results After 12 months of functional loading, all implants in both groups were clinical and radiographically successful. Histomorphometrically, although the initial bone formation was not significantly different between groups (new mineralized tissue: 41.03(12.87)% vs. 34.50(13.18)%, p = .620; allograft vs. xenograft groups), the graft resorbed faster in the allograft group (remnant graft particles: 9.83[7.77]% vs. 21.71[17.88]%; p = .026; allograft vs. xenograft groups). Non‐mineralized tissue did not statistically differ either (49.00[14.32]% vs. 43.79[19.90]%; p = .710; allograft vs. xenograft groups). The histologic analyses revealed higher cellular content, four times more osteoid lines, and higher vascularization in the xenograft group. Musashi‐1 (mesenchymal stromal cell marker) was also more intensively expressed in the xenograft group ( p = .019). Conclusions Both composite grafts generate adequate substratum to receive dental implants after healing. Compared with the xenograft composite, allograft composite shows faster turnover and a quicker decrease in biological action after 6 months.