We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 20 (2018), OMD/PDA     15. Jan. 2019
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 20 (2018), OMD/PDA  (15.01.2019)

Supplement, Poster 2028, Language: English

Comparison of Two Types of Grafts at Maxillary Sinus Elevation: RCT
Correia, Francisco / Gouveia, Sonia / Pozza, Daniel Humberto / Felino, Antonio Campos / Faria-Almeida, Ricardo
Introduction: With limited bone availability in the posterior maxilla, we can regenerate with lateral osteotomy surgery of the maxillary sinus. Main: Histological, histomorphometric and radiological comparison between autograft and xenograft (Osteobiol Mp3®) on maxillary sinus lateral osteotomy.
Materials and methods: Split mouth randomized controlled trial,12 patients sample, 6 months of follow-up. Pre-CT scan was performed to assess the initial bone height, plan simultaneous bilateral sinus lift surgery, and intraoral autograft harvesting. After six months, a CT was performed to reassess the bone volume, plan the implants placement and collect a bone sample.
Results: Histologically wera observed, several stages of remodeling, without inflammation/infection. Histologically, the mean percentage of bone/connective tissue was 57.3%/42.7% vs. 56.0%/44.0% (auto vs xeno, p = 0.380). At patient's scale analysis, there were no significant differences in the performance of the material (p = 0.376). A signifcant effect of the patient (p <0.029) and the patient*material interaction (p <0.001) indicated that the performance of the material depends on the patient. Radiologically, a bone gain of 7.8 ± 2.4 mm vs. 8.7 ± 2.2 mm (auto vs. xeno, p <0.05) was observed, with no significant differences in material performance over time (p =0.26).
Discussion: Autograft is the gold standard, although presents disadvantages that justify the search for biomaterials. Results indicate values of bone/connective tissue, bone height gain and clinical complications similar to those in the literature.
Conclusions: Both grafts present similar results in the studied variables. Clinical Implications: Xenograft is a valid clinical alternative with less morbidity versus autograft. Indication of sources of funding: The regeneration materials are supplied by Tecnoss® (Osteo-biol mp3® and Evolution® membranes). This work was partially funded by the FCT, Foundation for Science and Technology, through projects UID / CEC / 00127/2013 (IEETA / UA, www.ieeta.pt) and UID / MAT / 04106/2013 (CIDMA / http://cidma.mat.ua.pt/). S. Gouveia thanks FCT for postdoctoral funding (ref. BPD / 87037/2012).

Keywords: Bone grafting, sinus augmentation, sinus floor augmentation, bone substitutes, bone regeneration, split mouth randomized clinical trial

27th Annual Meeting of the Portuguese Dental Association 2018 (OMD)
08.-10. November 2018
Exponor, Porto, Portugal