Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A histomorphometric meta-analysis of sinus elevation with various grafting materials

  • Jörg Handschel1Email author,
  • Melani Simonowska1,
  • Christian Naujoks1,
  • Rita A. Depprich1,
  • Michelle A. Ommerborn2,
  • Ulrich Meyer1 and
  • Norbert R. Kübler2
Head & Face Medicine20095:12

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-5-12

Received: 25 February 2009

Accepted: 11 June 2009

Published: 11 June 2009

Abstract

Several grafting materials have been used in sinus augmentation procedures including autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone and combination of these and others. Up to now a subject of controversy in maxillofacial surgery and dentistry is, what is the most appropriate graft material for sinus floor augmentation.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to provide a body of evidence-based data regarding grafting materials in external sinus floor elevation concerning the fate of the augmented material at the histomorphological level, through a meta-analysis of the available literature.

Materials and methods

The literature searches were performed using the National Library of Medicine. The search covered all English and German literature from 1995 until 2006. For analyzing the amount of bone the parameter "Total Bone Volume" (TBV) was assessed. TBV is determined as the percentage of the section consisting of bone tissue.

Results

In a relatively early phase after implantation the autogenous bone shows the highest TBV values. Interestingly, the different TBV levels approximate during the time. After 9 months no statistically significant differences can be detected between the various grafting materials.

Conclusion

From a clinical point of view, the use of autogenous bone is advantageous if a prosthetic rehabilitation (with functional loading) is expected within 9 months. In other cases the use of anorganic deproteinized bovine bone in combination with autogenous bone seems to be preferable. Donor side morbidity is ignored in this conclusion.

Introduction

Since the external sinus floor elevation technique was first introduced by Boyne [1] and Tatum [2] several grafting materials have been used in sinus augmentation procedures including autogenous bone [13], demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA)[4, 5], hydroxyapatite [6], β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) [7], anorganic deproteinized bovine bone [8] and combination of these and others [9]. Up to now a subject of controversy in maxillofacial surgery and dentistry exist, what is the most appropriate graft material for sinus floor augmentation. The consensus conference on sinus grafting held in 1996 showed that in the light of little data which are evidence-based many participants believed that autografts were the most efficacious [10]. However, the collection of autogeneous bone requires an extra donor site surgery and carries with it extra risks for morbidity and complaints, particularly when bone from the iliac crest is harvested [11]. According to Kent and Block [3] an ideal grafting material should fulfil the following criteria amongst other things:

Osteoinduction

Osteoconduction

Volume stability

These criteria are best analysed by histological examinations. To the best of our knowledge, only a very small number of randomized controlled clinical trials have been conducted to compare various grafting materials with regard to these histological criteria. The available evidence therefore consists either of case reports, case series or retrospective studies. The aim of this study is to provide a body of evidence-based data regarding grafting materials in external sinus floor elevation to assist surgeons to make an informed choice between those materials, through a meta-analysis of the available literature.

Methods

The literature searches were performed using the National Library of Medicine (Internet: http://www.pubmed.com). The search covered all English and German literature from 1995 until 2006. Keywords used in the search were: "sinus" and "augmentation" and "bone substitute". The search was confined to studies or reports in humans. No animal studies were included. Moreover, review articles and in vitro studies were excluded. In all, 120 articles were identified and all abstracts were evaluated. After first evaluation the following inclusion criteria were added: The surgical procedure has to be an external sinus floor elevation and because of the presence of only single reports of some grafting materials – which does not allow a meta-analysis for those materials- the focus was on materials which are used in several studies/reports. Thus only papers using autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone (Bio Oss®, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland) [8] and combination of these materials were included. To standardize the multiple combinations of Bio Oss® with autogenous bone all mixing ratios higher than 80% Bio Oss® to 20% bone were pooled in the Bio Oss® group. Mixing ratios below (e.g. 50% Bio Oss® to 50% bone) were subsumed under the Bio Oss® + autogeneous bone group. Regarding the β-TCP group in almost all studies β-TCP was used without autogenous bone. In addition to review articles, interviews and editorials were excluded.

For analyzing the amount of bone the parameter "Total Bone Volume" (TBV) was assessed. TBV is determined as the percentage of the section consisting of bone tissue [12]. This parameter was either directly taken from the paper or calculated where possible. In studies reporting woven and lamellar bone separately, the sum of both values was calculated whereas in studies determing lateral and central bone biopsies the mean was calculated.

For statistical analysis the data were weighted according to the number of observations in each study and the inverse variance. Moreover, to detect any statistical significant differences a weighted ANOVA with Random effect model and alpha-adjustment according to Tukey-Kramer for post hoc tests was used [13]. Differences were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.

Results

After the initial literature search 120 articles were identified. Four of these articles were not written in English or german and another four were animal studies. Six articles were interviews or editorials and were excluded too. Of the remaining 106 articles 25 were not related to the external sinus floor elevation and another 16 articles gave an account on rare grafting material. Of the remaining 65 articles only in 30 studies the histomorphological parameter TBV was evaluable. That means that this parameter was explicitly noted in the article or could easily been calculated. Finally, only 30 articles remain for data analysis (table 1).
Table 1

Selection of evaluable articles by in- and exclusion criteria

Criteria

Studies which do not meet the criteria

Remaining studies

After initial literature search

 

120

English or german

4

116

Only human (no animal studies)

4

112

No interviews/editorials

6

106

Only external sinus floor elevation

25

81

Only autogenous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone [8] and combination of these materials

16

65

TBV evaluable

35

30

In many of these 30 articles various grafting materials were described. In total 53 observations regarding grafting materials could be found. The vast majority were prospective studies, followed by some case reports or case series and finally one retrospective study (table 2).
Table 2

Distribution of articles and material observations

 

Σ

Case reports

Retrospective studies

Prospective studies

Studies

30

3

1

26

Examined grafting materials (in these studies)

53

4

3

46

A prerequisite for statistical analysis is that the mean values and the standard deviation is noted in the paper (criteria I) [13]. This is not the case in single case reports (criteria II). That is why those papers meeting one of these two criteria have to be excluded from further analysis (table 3). If a meta-analysis for one specific grafting material would be based on only one or two studies, the result would almost echo the findings of the single study. Therefore, it is rational to exclude materials with only one or two reports (criteria III). Table 3 shows the number of remaining studies/observations after application of these three criteria (Tab. 3). Finally, 30 articles remain for evaluation [7, 8, 12, 1441]. The studies are listed in table 4 (table 4). In no studies any allergic reactions to grafting materials or infections related to graft implantation were described.
Table 3

Selection of evaluable material observations by three exclusion criteria

 

Total observation

Criteria I: no mean value or SD

Criteria II: single case report

Criteria I or II

Remaining material observations

Algipore®

1

0

0

0

1

Bio Oss®

18

4

3

5

13*

Bio Oss® + autogen

(50:50 bis 80:20)

8

0

0

0

8*

DFDBA

1

1

0

1

0

HA

3

1

0

1

2

Autogen

13

3

5

4

9*

Autogen + DFDBA 50:50

1

0

0

0

1

Autogen + HA 50:50

1

0

0

0

1

β-TCP

7

1

1

1

6*

Σ

53

17

5

18

41 (36)

Note the numbers with * show the grafting materials with at least three reported observations (criteria III).

Table 4

List of reviewed publications.

Authors

Year of publication

Grafting material

Mean healing time (months)

n

TBV (%)

SD

Artzi Z. et al.

2001

BioOss

12.00

10

32.20

8.150

Artzi Z. et al.

2001

HA

12.00

10

42.10

10.010

Artzi Z. et al.

2002

BioOss

12.00

10

43.61

8.601

Artzi Z. et al.

2003

HA

12.00

10

32.95

7.991

Artzi Z. et al.

2005

BioOss

12.00

12

45.60

10.900

Artzi Z. et al.

2005

β-TCP

12.00

12

32.00

8.400

Boeck-Neto RJ. et al.

2002

autogen+DFDBA

10.00

5

50.46

16.290

Boeck-Neto RJ. et al.

2002

autogen+HA

10.00

5

46.79

8.560

Degidi M. et al.

2004

BioOss+autogen

6.00

12

38.80

3.200

Froum SJ. et al.

2002

BioOss

7.25

2

16.00

4.243

Froum SJ. et al.

2002

BioOss

11.00

1

32.00

.

Fugazotto PA. et al.

2003

BioOss

6.88

26

52.85

19.605

Fugazotto PA. et al.

2003

BioOss

12.50

5

68.80

7.400

Hallman M. et al.

2001

BioOss+autogen

7.00

16

24.70

16.901

Hallman M. et al.

2001

BioOss+autogen

30.00

12

50.70

22.800

Hallman M. et al.

2002

Autogen

12.50

11

37.70

31.300

Hallman M. et al.

2002

BioOss

14.75

10

39.90

8.000

Hallman M. et al.

2002

BioOss+autogen

12.50

11

41.70

26.600

John HD. et al.

2004

Autogen

5.50

4

53.50

2.520

John HD. et al.

2004

BioOss

5.50

21

29.52

7.430

John HD. et al.

2004

BioOss+autogen

5.50

13

32.23

6.860

Karabuda C. et al.

2001

BioOss

6.00

5

50.00

.

Karabuda C. et al.

2001

DFDBA

6.00

1

72.50

.

Karabuda C. et al.

2001

HA

6.00

3

27.50

8.660

Ozyuvaci H. et al.

2003

BioOss

7.00

44

47.50

0.945

Ozyuvaci H. et al.

2003

β-TCP

7.00

44

52.50

0.945

Proussaefs P. et al.

2003

BioOss

11.00

5

34.40

10.810

Scarano A. et al.

2004

BioOss

53.00

1

38.00

.

Schopper C. et al.

2003

Algipore

7.00

26

23.00

8.300

Szabo G. et al.

2001

Autogen

6.00

4

37.05

8.842

Szabo G. et al.

2001

β-TCP

6.00

4

29.37

10.568

Szabo G. et al.

2005

Autogen

6.00

20

38.34

7.400

Szabo G. et al.

2005

β-TCP

6.00

20

36.47

6.900

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2000

Autogen

5.00

9

42.28

3.251

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2000

Autogen

16.00

1

45.07

.

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2002

Autogen

5.00

2

40.05

1.061

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2002

Autogen

15.00

1

41.70

.

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2003

Autogen

5.00

1

37.30

.

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2003

BioOss

8.00

1

22.90

.

Tadjoedin ES et al.

2003

BioOss+autogen

6.33

3

29.57

4.508

Trisi P. et al.

2003

BioOss+autogen

15.33

9

44.38

8.575

Turunen T. et al.

2004

Autogen

6.75

14

25.10

7.200

Turunen T. et al.

2004

Autogen

13.75

4

25.10

6.300

Valentini P. et al.

2000

BioOss

6.00

3

21.08

7.250

Valentini P. et al.

2000

BioOss

12.00

3

27.55

4.880

Wallace SS. et al.

2005

BioOss

8.00

153

15.53

8.023

Yildrim M. et al.

2000

BioOss

7.00

11

14.70

5.000

Yildrim M. et al.

2001

BioOss+autogen

7.75

12

18.90

6.400

Zerbo IR. et al.

2001

β-TCP

8.00

1

20.00

.

Zerbo IR. et al.

2004

Autogen

6.00

5

41.00

10.000

Zerbo IR. et al.

2004

β-TCP

6.00

9

17.00

5.000

Zijderveld SA. et al.

2005

Autogen

6.00

5

41.00

10.000

Zijderveld SA. et al.

2005

β-TCP

6.00

9

17.00

5.000

n = number of patients

The weighted regression of TBV against the time point of sampling shows the development of the bone volume during time (Fig. 1). Interestingly, while Bio Oss®, Bio Oss® with autogenous bone and β-TCP show a steep increase the TBV of autogenous bone (without any additional grafting material) is decreasing. The increase of TBV during time in the Bio Oss® group can be considered as statistically significant.
Figure 1

Correlation of TBV and time after grafting. The size of the bubbles reflect the relative weight of the value. Black: Bio Oss®, red: Bio Oss® with autogenous bone, blue: autogeneous bone, green: β-TCP.

Regarding Fig. 1 it is striking that there are two clusters of sampling. The first cluster comprise four until nine months after initial surgery and the second cluster span the time from nine months onwards. To compare the TBV depending on the grafting material the mean values were calculated for these two clusters. Because it is reasonable to weight the study results regarding the number of observations and the standard deviation both the "normal" and the adjusted mean values were calculated. In a relatively early phase after implantation the autogenous bone shows the highest TBV values. This was statistically significant (Fig. 2). Interestingly, the different TBV levels approximate during the time. After 9 months no statistically significant differences can be detected between the various grafting materials (Fig. 3). However, there was a strong tendency that Bio Oss® with autogenous bone shows the highest TBV values.
Figure 2

TBV after 4 until 9 months. Shown are the values and the SD of the weighted mean. The dashed lines mark the statistical significant differences.

Figure 3

TBV after more than 9 months. Shown are the values and the SD of the weighted mean.

Discussion

External sinus floor augmentation has proven to be very effective in increasing bone volume in edentulous maxillary areas. Due to the significant resorption in the posterior maxilla following teeth extraction [42] there is often not enough bone volume to ensure the stability of dental implants [43]. Elevation and augmentation of the maxillary sinus can increase the bone height in the posterior area of the maxilla [1, 2]. Autogenous bone grafts obtained from the patient himself is very successful in bone regeneration and serves as a gold standard [10]. However, the explant of autogeneous bone requires an extra donor site surgery and is associated with an extra risks for morbidity and complaints, particularly when bone from the iliac crest is harvested [11]. Various bone grafting materials have been used as alternatives or supplements to autogenous bone such as demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDBA), hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), anorganic deproteinized bovine bone [8] or combination of these materials. Bone grafting materials may produce bone formation by osteogenesis, osteoinduction or osteoconduction. Whereas osteogenesis is obtained by providing osteogenic cells and matrix directly in the graft (e.g. autogenous bone, distraction osteogenesis [44]), osteoinduction postulates that the grafted material is chemotactic to undifferentiated progenitor cells inducing them to differentiate into osteoblasts [31, 45]. Osteoconduction permits outgrowth of osteogenic cells from existing bone surfaces into the graft material [31]. Although these mechanisms have been described in detail, the question remains which bone grafting material is most suitable in external sinus floor augmentation at the histological level.

One important finding of this study is that there is only little evidence for most of the grafting materials. Only anorganic deproteinized bovine bone (Bio Oss®) and pure-phase β-TCP (in most cases Cerasorb®, Curasan Pharma GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany, was used) as well as autogenous bone (and combinations of these materials) were found to present evaluable data for meta-analysis. Interestingly, no reports regarding allergic reaction or infections caused by implantation of grafting material were described in the articles.

With regard to the TBV autogenous bone reaches the highest values during the first 9 months. This difference to the other materials was statistically significant. That's means that the percentage of mineralized bone was the highest. That is not surprisingly, because in the specimens of the other groups there are of course particles of the heterologous or alloplastic grafting material diminishing the percentage of the bone. Logically consistent the TBV shows the lowest values in the Bio Oss® and β-TCP groups. In contrast to this early phase there is no statistically significant difference between the grafting materials in the later phase anymore. Moreover, the values of the Bio Oss® group and Bio Oss® with autogenous bone show higher mean values than the pure autogenous bone, whereas the mean value of β-TCP is almost equal to autogenous bone. There could be two adverse effects after the initial grafting procedure. On the one hand bone is resorbed because in no case was any functional load on the grafting material (The samples of the patients were taken before the implant was in function). On the other hand the TBV in the Bio Oss® and β-TCP groups increased during time. That means that the grafting material is at least partially resorbed and replaced by bone. (Reduction of soft tissue volume hardly produce an increase of TBV because in sinus lift procedures soft tissue is very rare in the grafted material.) The first effect is well known and occurs in the alveolar bone usually after tooth extraction when the functional load is reduced or absent [42]. Additionally, there are reports in literature that up to 55% of the augmented autogenous bone resorbs during the first 6 months [46, 47]. The second effect reflects osteoinductive or at least osteoconductive properties of the non-autogenous grafting materials. Tadjoedin and colleagues describe in pure Bio Oss® grafts, that bone growth takes place through the guidance of osteogenic cells from existing bone surfaces of the grafted particles. This leads to the formation of woven bone between the grafted particles connecting them together into a mass of mineralized tissue [31]. When autogenous bone is mixed with Bio Oss® the human bone particles act as a source of bone cells [48, 49] providing more osteogenic cells and thus accelerating new bone formation. This is in line with an former study reporting that bone formation in a patient was faster in a mixed graft of Bio Oss® and autogenous bone than in a graft of Bio Oss® alone [50]. Bio Oss® seem to prevent bone loss and increase new bone formation but it is unclear wether or how fast the Bio Oss® particles will be resorbed. Both no resorption after six years [51] and slow resorption [31] are reported in literature.

In contrast to Bio Oss® there are reports that β-TCP is fully resorbed in 12 to 18 months and is replaced by bone that is similar both functionally and anatomically to the original bone [30]. Regarding the TBV there no statistically significant differences between Bio Oss® and β-TCP although the combination of Bio Oss® with autogenous bone shows the highest value in the later phase. Because β-TCP was used as a grafting material only without bone in the evaluated studies it might be that an additional supplement of autogeneous bone could increase the TBV too. The mechanism of preventing fast resorption and of increasing the TBV after about one year is probably very similar to Bio Oss®.

Conclusion

Taken together, comparability of Bio Oss® with or without autogenous bone and β-TCP to autogenous bone for sinus grafting can be regarded as evidence based concerning the histological bone structure after about 9 months. However, the augmented material contain more mineralized bone tissue 4–9 months after grafting when only autogenous bone is used. From a clinical point of view, the use of autogenous bone is advantageous if a prosthetic rehabilitation (with functional loading) is expected within 9 months. In other cases the use of Bio Oss® in combination with autogenous bone seems to be preferable. Donor side morbidity is ignored in this conclusion.

When reviewing the literature and doing a meta-analysis there is one additional thing you have to bear in mind: the publication bias. That means that most of all authors report only from good results especially in case reports or case series. Bad or unwanted results are often neglected and not published in international journals. Therefore, even the results of this meta-analysis – although representing the highest grade of evidence – show presumably slightly to optimistic numbers.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Dr. Reinhard Willers for his support in statistical analysis.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department for Cranio- and Maxillofacial Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-Universität
(2)
Department for Operative and Preventive Dentistry and Endodontics, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf

References

  1. Boyne PJ, James RA: Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg. 1980, 38 (8): 613-616.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Tatum H: Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dent Clin North Am. 1986, 30 (2): 207-229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Block MS, Kent JN: Sinus augmentation for dental implants: the use of autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997, 55 (11): 1281-1286. 10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90185-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Nishibori M, Betts NJ, Salama H, Listgarten MA: Short-term healing of autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts after sinus augmentation: a report of 2 cases. J Periodontol. 1994, 65 (10): 958-966.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wetzel AC, Stich H, Caffesse RG: Bone apposition onto oral implants in the sinus area filled with different grafting materials. A histological study in beagle dogs. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1995, 6: 155-163. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060304.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wheeler SL, Holmes RE, Calhoun CJ: Six-year clinical and histologic study of sinus-lift grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996, 11 (1): 26-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Szabo G, Huys L, Coulthard P, Maiorana C, Garagiola U, Barabas J, Nemeth Z, Hrabak K, Suba Z: A prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial of autogenous bone versus beta-tricalcium phosphate graft alone for bilateral sinus elevation: histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005, 20 (3): 371-381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Imbronito AV, Scarano A, Orsini G, Piattelli A, Arana-Chavez VE: Ultrastructure of bone healing in defects grafted with a copolymer of polylactic/polyglycolic acids. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005, 74: 215-221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Velich N, Nemeth Z, Toth C, Szabo G: Long-term results with different bone substitutes used for sinus floor elevation. J Craniofac Surg. 2004, 15 (1): 38-41. 10.1097/00001665-200401000-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, Iacono VJ: Report of the Sinus Consensus Conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998, 13 Suppl: 11-45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaptein ML, Hoogstraten J, de Putter C, de Lange GL, Blijdorp PA: Dental implants in the atrophic maxilla: measurements of patients' satisfaction and treatment experience. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1998, 9: 321-326. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090505.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Tadjoedin ES, de Lange GL, Lyaruu DM, Kuiper L, Burger EH: High concentrations of bioactive glass material (BioGran) vs. autogenous bone for sinus floor elevation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2002, 13: 428-436. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130412.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Normand SL: Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med. 1999, 18: 321-359. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990215)18:3<321::AID-SIM28>3.0.CO;2-P.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Dayan D: Nonceramic hydroxyapatite bone derivative in sinus augmentation procedures: clinical and histomorphometric observations in 10 consecutive cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003, 23 (4): 381-389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Artzi Z, Kozlovsky A, Nemcovsky CE, Weinreb M: The amount of newly formed bone in sinus grafting procedures depends on tissue depth as well as the type and residual amount of the grafted material. J Clin Periodontol. 2005. 2005, 32 (2): 193-199. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00656.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Dayan D: Bovine-HA spongiosa blocks and immediate implant placement in sinus augmentation procedures. Histopathological and histomorphometric observations on different histological stainings in 10 consecutive patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2002, 13: 420-427. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130411.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Tal H, Dayan D: Histopathological morphometric evaluation of 2 different hydroxyapatite-bone derivatives in sinus augmentation procedures: a comparative study in humans. J Periodontol. 2001, 72 (7): 911-920. 10.1902/jop.2001.72.7.911.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Boeck-Neto RJ, Gabrielli M, Lia R, Marcantonio E, Shibli JA, Marcantonio E: Histomorphometrical analysis of bone formed after maxillary sinus floor augmentation by grafting with a combination of autogenous bone and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft or hydroxyapatite. Journal Periodontology. 2002, 73: 266-270. 10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.266.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Degidi M, Piattelli M, Scarano A, Iezzi G, Piattelli A: Maxillary sinus augmentation with a synthetic cell-binding peptide: histological and histomorphometrical results in humans. Journal Oral Implantology. 2004, 30: 376-383. 10.1563/0720.1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Froum SJ, Wallace SS, Tarnow DP, Cho SC: Effect of platelet-rich plasma on bone growth and osseointegration in human maxillary sinus grafts: three bilateral case reports. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002, 22 (1): 45-53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fugazzotto PA: GBR using bovine bone matrix and resorbable and nonresorbable membranes. Part 2: Clinical results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003, 23 (6): 599-605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallman M, Lundgren S, Sennerby L: Histologic analysis of clinical biopsies taken 6 months and 3 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with 80% bovine hydroxyapatite and 20% autogenous bone mixed with fibrin glue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001, 3 (2): 87-96. 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00236.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallman M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S: A clinical and histologic evaluation of implant integration in the posterior maxilla after sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone, bovine hydroxyapatite, or a 20:80 mixture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002, 17 (5): 635-643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. John HD, Wenz B: Histomorphometric analysis of natural bone mineral for maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004, 19 (2): 199-207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Karabuda C, Ozdemir O, Tosun T, Anil A, Olgac V: Histological and clinical evaluation of 3 different grafting materials for sinus lifting procedure based on 8 cases. Journal Periodontology. 2001, 72: 1436-1442. 10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1436.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Ozyuvaci H, Bilgic B, Firatli E: Radiologic and histomorphometric evaluation of maxillary sinus grafting with alloplastic graft materials. Journal Periodontology. 2003, 74: 909-915. 10.1902/jop.2003.74.6.909.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Proussaefs P, Lozada J, Kim J: Effects of sealing the perforated sinus membrane with a resorbable collagen membrane: a pilot study in humans. Journal Oral Implantology. 2003, 29: 235-241. 10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0235:EOSTPS>2.3.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sartori S, Silvestri M, Forni F, Icaro Cornaglia A, Tesei P, Cattaneo V: Ten-year follow-up in a maxillary sinus augmentation using anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss). A case report with histomorphometric evaluation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2003, 14: 369-372. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140316.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schopper C, Moser D, Sabbas A, Lagogiannis G, Spassova E, Konig F, Donath K, Ewers R: The fluorohydroxyapatite (FHA) FRIOS Algipore is a suitable biomaterial for the reconstruction of severely atrophic human maxillae. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2003, 14: 743-749. 10.1046/j..2003.00959.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Szabo G, Suba Z, Hrabak K, Barabas J, Nemeth Z: Autogenous bone versus beta-tricalcium phosphate graft alone for bilateral sinus elevations (2- and 3-dimensional computed tomographic, histologic, and histomorphometric evaluations): preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001, 16 (5): 681-692.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tadjoedin ES, de Lange GL, Bronckers AL, Lyaruu DM, Burger EH: Deproteinized cancellous bovine bone (Bio-Oss) as bone substitute for sinus floor elevation. A retrospective, histomorphometrical study of five cases. Journal Clinical Periodontology. 2003, 30: 261-270. 10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.01099.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tadjoedin ES, de Lange GL, Holzmann PJ, Kulper L, Burger EH: Histological observations on biopsies harvested following sinus floor elevation using a bioactive glass material of narrow size range. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2000, 11: 334-344. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011004334.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Trisi P, Marcato C, Todisco M: Bone-to-implant apposition with machined and MTX microtextured implant surfaces in human sinus grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003, 23 (5): 427-437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Turunen T, Peltola J, Yli-Urpo A, Happonen RP: Bioactive glass granules as a bone adjunctive material in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004, 15: 135-141. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00989.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Valentini P, Abensur D, Wenz B, Peetz M, Schenk R: Sinus grafting with porous bone mineral (Bio-Oss) for implant placement: a 5-year study on 15 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000, 20 (3): 245-253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Cho SC, Elian N, Monteiro D, Kim BS, Tarnow DP: Sinus augmentation utilizing anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) with absorbable and nonabsorbable membranes placed over the lateral window: histomorphometric and clinical analyses. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005, 25 (6): 551-559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Yildirim M, Spiekermann H, Biesterfeld S, Edelhoff D: Maxillary sinus augmentation using xenogenic bone substitute material Bio-Oss in combination with venous blood. A histologic and histomorphometric study in humans. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2000, 11: 217-229. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003217.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Yildirim M, Spiekermann H, Handt S, Edelhoff D: Maxillary sinus augmentation with the xenograft Bio-Oss and autogenous intraoral bone for qualitative improvement of the implant site: a histologic and histomorphometric clinical study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001, 16 (1): 23-33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zerbo IR, Bronckers AL, de Lange GL, van Beek GJ, Burger EH: Histology of human alveolar bone regeneration with a porous tricalcium phosphate. A report of two cases. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001, 12: 379-384. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012004379.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zerbo IR, Zijderveld SA, de Boer A, Bronckers AL, de Lange G, ten Bruggenkate CM, Burger EH: Histomorphometry of human sinus floor augmentation using a porous beta-tricalcium phosphate: a prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004, 15: 724-732. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01055.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zijderveld SA, Zerbo IR, Bergh van den JP, Schulten EA, ten Bruggenkate CM: Maxillary sinus floor augmentation using a beta-tricalcium phosphate (Cerasorb) alone compared to autogenous bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005, 20 (3): 432-440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tallgren A: The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972, 27 (2): 120-132. 10.1016/0022-3913(72)90188-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Blomqvist JE, Alberius P, Isaksson S: Retrospective analysis of one-stage maxillary sinus augmentation with endosseous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996, 11 (4): 512-521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortakoglu K, Karacay S, Sencimen M, Akin E, Ozyigit AH, Bengi O: Distraction osteogenesis in a severe mandibular deficiency. Head Face Med. 2007, 3: 7. 10.1186/1746-160X-3-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Kubler N, Urist MR, Reuther J: [In-vivo and in-vitro osteo-induction and cartilage formation by bone morphogenetic protein]. Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1991, 36: 230-232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jensen OT, Sennerby L: Histologic analysis of clinically retrieved titanium microimplants placed in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998, 13 (4): 513-521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Timmenga NM, Vissink A, Reintsema H: Morbidity and complications of bone grafting of the floor of the maxillary sinus for the placement of endosseous implants. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1999, 3 Suppl 1: S65-S69. 10.1007/PL00014520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Joldersma M, Burger EH, Semeins CM, Klein-Nulend J: Mechanical stress induces COX-2 mRNA expression in bone cells from elderly women. Journal Biomechanics. 2000, 33: 53-61. 10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00172-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Joldersma M, Klein-Nulend J, Oleksik AM, Heyligers IC, Burger EH: Estrogen enhances mechanical stress-induced prostaglandin production by bone cells from elderly women. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001, 280 (3): E436-E442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Smiler DG, Johnson PW, Lozada JL, Misch C, Rosenlicht JL, Tatum OH, Wagner JR: Sinus lift grafts and endosseous implants. Treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla. Dent Clin North Am. 1992, 36 (1): 151-186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlegel AK, Donath K: BIO-OSS–a resorbable bone substitute?. Journal Long Term Effects Medical Implants. 1998, 8: 201-209.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Handschel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.