Premium
Sinus augmentation using a mini‐pig model: Effect of ceramic and allogeneic bone biomaterials
Author(s) -
Susin Cristiano,
Fiorini Tiago,
Lee Jaebum,
de Freitas Rubens Moreno,
Chiu HsienChung,
Prasad Hari S.,
Buxton Amanda N.,
Wikesjö Ulf M. E.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12766
Subject(s) - osseointegration , dentistry , maxillary sinus , biomaterial , medicine , sinus (botany) , dental implant , bone healing , implant , bone formation , surgery , biomedical engineering , biology , botany , genus
Background Present clinical practice broadly relies on off‐the‐shelf allogeneic, xenogeneic or synthetic bone biomaterials in support of sinus augmentation. Also, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 in an absorbable collagen sponge carrier (rhBMP‐2/ACS) has been shown to support clinically relevant bone formation when used to augment the maxillary sinus. Objectives To evaluate local bone formation/dental implant osseointegration following implantation of two particulate bone biomaterials using the mini‐pig sinus augmentation model. Methods Nine adult Göttingen mini‐pigs were used for evaluation of a biphasic ceramic (15%/85% HA/ß‐TCP) and an allogeneic mineralized bone biomaterial. Treatments randomized to contralateral sinus sites included sham‐surgery (control) and biomaterials. Two threaded dental implants (ø4.0 × 11.5 mm) were placed at each sinus site. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks for histologic analysis. Results Execution of the surgical protocol and healing was unremarkable. Limited infraorbital swelling was observed until suture removal. The biphasic ceramic and allogeneic bone biomaterials produced significantly increased bone formation (5.2 ± 1.9 mm and 4.9 ± 1.6 mm vs. 2.6 ± 0.5 mm, p < 0.05) and osseointegration (18.0 ± 6.0% and 25.1 ± 18.2% vs. 10.1 ± 8.0%, p < 0.05) over the sham‐surgery control. No significant differences were observed between biomaterials. Conclusions Implantation of biphasic ceramic or allogeneic bone biomaterials enhances bone formation in the mini‐pig maxillary sinus, however, dental implant bone support is incomplete resulting in overall limited osseointegration.