6533b857fe1ef96bd12b3cbc

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Effect of amount of biomaterial used for maxillary sinus lift on volume maintenance of grafts

Bruno-césar-ladeira VidigalMario-nazareno FavatoMauricio-greco CossoRoberta-paula-colen BustamanteFlávio Ricardo ManziLuciene-dornas MendesElton Gonçalves Zenóbio

subject

Cone beam computed tomographyMaxillary sinusbusiness.industryLift (data mining)ResearchSinus liftDentistryBiomaterial030206 dentistry:CIENCIAS MÉDICAS [UNESCO]03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicinemedicine.anatomical_structure030220 oncology & carcinogenesisUNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICASmedicineImplantOral SurgerybusinessGeneral DentistryBone volumeVolume (compression)

description

Background Regardless of the kind of biomaterial used for the graft, it is clear that, over time, the graft undergoes dimensional changes that could influence the final bone volume obtained, which could alter the stability of the installed implants. The aim of the present study was to compared and correlated the graft behavior with the amount (in grams) of xenogeneic and alloplastic biomaterials used in grafts for maxillary sinus lift. Material and Methods This retrospective cohort study used 148 CBCT images of 74 grafts from 68 maxillary sinuses lift patients in a university, post-graduate clinic. The weights of biomaterials, categorized in intervals according to amount used, were correlated with the graft volumes at V1 (10 days) and V2 (180 days). Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the possible bias effect of weight on graft maintenance. Results Mean weights of biomaterials used were: Bio-Oss Small® (1.58g); Bio-Oss Large® (1.35g); Endobon® (0.72g); BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim® (0.96g); Cerasorb® (1.13g) and Osteogen® (2.70g). No significant differences (p>0.05). Were found for the influence of these mean amounts in graft maintenance: Bio-Oss Small® (18); Bio-Oss Large® (10); Endobon® (17); BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim® (10); Cerasorb® (11); and Osteogen® (08) at V1 and V2. However, when biomaterials were categorized by intervals, all Cerasorb® interval groups showed statistically significant differences (p<0.001) in graft volume at V2. Conclusions The amounts of the biomaterials used could influence the final volume; depending on the biomaterial characteristics. Implant installation was possible with all studied grafts, although graft volume shrinkage should be considered when selecting biomaterial for sinus lift. Key words:Biocompatible materials; cone beam computed tomography; maxillary sinus; hydroxyapatites.

https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.56315