Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Oct;28(10):e175-e183. doi: 10.1111/clr.12983. Epub 2016 Sep 29.

Monophasic ß-TCP vs. biphasic HA/ß-TCP in two-stage sinus floor augmentation procedures - a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Author information

1
Private Practice, Opatja, Croatia.
2
Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
3
Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
4
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital of Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To compare a monophasic (100% ß-TCP) and a biphasic (60% HA and 40% ß-TCP) bone substitute material (BSM) regarding biocompatibility, osteoconductivity and implant stability using histological, radiological and resonance frequency analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Sixty-seven sinus floor elevations were performed in 60 patients. One patient group (monophasic bone substitute [MBS], 30 patients, 32 sinuses) was augmented by the use of the monophasic material (Bioresorb® , Sybron Implant Solutions, Bremen, Germany), while the second group (biphasic bone substitute (BBS), 30 patients, 35 sinuses) received a biphasic material (Maxresorb® , Botiss Biomaterials, Berlin, Germany). Cone beam CT images were taken immediately after augmentation and prior to implant placement after 6 months. Trephines were harvested, while the implant bed was prepared. Resonance frequency analysis was performed immediately after implant placement and 6 months later. Descriptive analysis was performed on all augmented sinus (n = 67). For statistical comparison of the groups, one sinus of each bilaterally treated patient was randomly excluded, resulting in 30 sinuses grafted with MBS and 30 sinuses grafted with BBS (n = 60).

RESULTS:

Histomorphometrical analysis of all sinuses displayed comparable results for both groups regarding new bone matrix (MBS 36.16 ± 19.37%, BBS 38.42 ± 12.61%), residual BSM (MBS 30.26 ± 11.7%, BBS 32.66 ± 12.57%) and non-mineralized tissue (MBS 34.29 ± 18.32%, BBS 28.92 ± 15.04) %) (P > 0.05, respectively). Radiological volume of BBS was significantly more stable (volume loss of 22.2% for MBS, 6.66% for BBS; P < 0.001), and homogeneity of the graft after 6 months was higher for BBS than that for MBS (P < 0.05). Resonance frequency analysis endorsed a higher implant stability quotient for BBS after 6 months than that for MBS (MBS 78.31 ± 5.81, BBS 80.42 ± 6.31; P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Both monophasic and biphasic materials show good biocompatibility and osteoconductivity with satisfactory support on implant stability. BBS remains more stable in terms of volume maintenance and radiological graft homogeneity after a healing period of 6 months.

KEYWORDS:

augmentation; biphasic; bone substitute; hydroxyapatite; implantology; sinus lift; β-tricalcium phosphate

PMID:
27683073
DOI:
10.1111/clr.12983
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center