A Comparative Histomorphometric Analysis of Two Biomaterials for Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Randomized Clinical, Crossover, and Split-Mouth Study

• Published in: Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine Vol. 2022; pp. 4577148 - 7
• Main Authors: Martiniano, Carlos Ricardo de Queiroz, Valadas, Lídia Audrey Rocha, Lins do Carmo Filho, Jose Ronildo, Alves, Ana Paula Negreiros Nunes, Leitão Lotif, Mara Assef, Sotto-Maior, Bruno Salles, Dantas, Thereza Cristina Farias Botelho, Rodrigues, Luciane Lacerda Franco Rocha, Francischone, Carlos Eduardo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Hindawi 2022; Hindawi Limited
• Subjects: Acetic acid; Angiogenesis; Biocompatibility; Biomedical materials; Bone biomaterials; Bone grafts; Bone growth; Bone implants; Bone surgery; Connective tissues; Dental implants; Dental prosthetics; Dentistry; Gamma rays; Laboratories; Maxillary sinus; Mouth; Osteoclasts; Osteocytes; Physiology; Regeneration; Rehabilitation; Sinuses; Skin & tissue grafts; Surgery; Variance analysis; Brazil
• ISSN: 1741-427X; 1741-4288
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/4577148

Introduction. Considering oral rehabilitation with dental implants, many studies have aimed at improving bone regeneration through the use of biomaterials. Objective. This study aimed at comparing bone neoformation in patients undergoing bilateral maxillary sinus surgery with two bovine biomaterials. Materials and Methods. This is a randomized, blinded, clinical crossover, and divided mouth study. Ten participants with an indication of maxillary sinus enlargement were selected and underwent surgical treatment with Bio-Oss® graft biomaterial (graft 1) on one side and Lumina-Porous® graft biomaterial (graft 2) on the other. The samples were collected after nine months and fixed and then decalcified in 10% ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) solution for 30 days to process and make histological slides. Connective and bone tissue were further analyzed to identify the amount of newly formed bone. Results. The graft 1 group had a greater formation of vital mineralized tissue when compared to the graft 2 group (p = 0.01). For nonvital mineralized tissue and amount of connective tissue, there was no statistical difference (p = 0.21 and p = 0.09, respectively). The medullary spaces were larger in the graft 2 group. The group treated with graft 1 presented a higher percentage of osteoclasts and viable osteocytes compared to the graft 2 group (p = 0.014 and p = 0.027, respectively). Conclusion. Every day, new alternative biomaterials are offered as an option in oral rehabilitation. In this study, both treatments induced bone neoformation after 9 months; however, the group treated with Bio-Oss® showed a higher percentage of vital mineralized bone tissue.