uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Prospective 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study of Implants Placed after Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Synthetic Biphasic Calcium Phosphate or Deproteinized Bovine Bone
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg.
2012 (English)In: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, ISSN 1523-0899, E-ISSN 1708-8208, Vol. 14, no 1, 41-50 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The technique of using bone grafts or different biomaterials for augmentation of the maxillary sinus prior to implant placement is well accepted by clinicians. However, clinical documentation of some bone substitutes is still lacking.

Purpose: This prospective study was designed to evaluate the success rate of implants placed after maxillary sinus augmentation with a novel synthetic biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) or deproteinized bovine bone (DBB), the latter acting as control.

Material and Methods: Nine edentulous patients and two partially edentulous patients with a mean age of 67 years with a bilateral need for sinus augmentation, <5 mm residual bone in the floor of the sinus and a crestal width >/=4 mm, were included in the study. After bilateral elevation of the Schneiderian membrane, all patients were randomized for augmentation with synthetic BCP in one side and DBB in the contralateral side. After 8 months of graft healing, 62 implants with an SLActive surface were placed. Implant survival, graft resorption, plaque index, bleeding on probing, sulcus bleeding index, probing pocket depth, and implant success rate were evaluated after 1 year of functional loading.

Results: After a mean of 118 days, all patients received their fixed prosthetic constructions. One implant was lost in each biomaterial, giving an overall survival rate of 96.8%. Success rates for implants placed in BCP and DBB were 91.7 and 95.7%, respectively. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found around implants placed in BCP, DBB, or residual bone, respectively. The mean graft resorption was 0.43 mm (BCP) and 0.29 mm (DBB).

Conclusion: In this limited study, implant success rate was not dependent on the biomaterial used for maxillary sinus augmentation. Similar results were found after 1 year of functional loading for implants placed after sinus augmentation using BCP or DBB.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 14, no 1, 41-50 p.
Keyword [en]
augmentation, Bio-Oss®, bone substitutes, BoneCeramic®, dental implants, sinuslift
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-129602DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00224.xISI: 000299412900003PubMedID: 20491816OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-129602DiVA: diva2:344487
Available from: 2010-08-19 Created: 2010-08-19 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg
In the same journal
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 393 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf