Mendes Luciene-Dornas, Bustamante Roberta-Paula-Colen, Vidigal Bruno-César-Ladeira, Favato Mario-Nazareno, Manzi Flávio-Ricardo, Cosso Mauricio-Greco, Zenóbio Elton-Gonçalves
Post-graduate, Dentistry Department Program Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Post-graduate, Implant Master's Program Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2020 Sep 1;12(9):e830-e837. doi: 10.4317/jced.56315. eCollection 2020 Sep.
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.
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.
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 (>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 (<0.001) in graft volume at V2.
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. Biocompatible materials; cone beam computed tomography; maxillary sinus; hydroxyapatites.
无论用于移植的生物材料种类如何，很明显，随着时间的推移，移植体会发生尺寸变化，这可能会影响最终获得的骨体积，进而改变植入种植体的稳定性。本研究的目的是比较并关联移植行为与上颌窦提升术中用于移植的异种和异体生物材料的用量（克数）。
这项回顾性队列研究使用了来自一所大学研究生诊所的68例上颌窦提升患者的74次移植的148张CBCT图像。根据使用量按区间分类的生物材料重量与V1（10天）和V2（180天）时的移植体积相关。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验评估重量对移植维持的可能偏差影响。
所用生物材料的平均重量为：Bio-Oss Small®（1.58克）；Bio-Oss Large®（1.35克）；Endobon®（0.72克）；BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim®（0.96克）；Cerasorb®（1.13克）和Osteogen®（2.70克）。这些平均用量对移植维持的影响未发现显著差异（>0.05）：V1和V2时，Bio-Oss Small®（18）；Bio-Oss Large®（10）；Endobon®（17）；BoneCeramic®+Emdogaim®（10）；Cerasorb®（11）；和Osteogen®（08）。然而，当按区间对生物材料进行分类时，所有Cerasorb®区间组在V2时的移植体积显示出统计学上的显著差异（<0.001）。
所用生物材料的量可能会影响最终体积；这取决于生物材料的特性。所有研究的移植体都可以进行种植体植入，尽管在选择用于窦提升的生物材料时应考虑移植体体积缩小的情况。生物相容性材料；锥形束计算机断层扫描；上颌窦；羟基磷灰石。
