Histomorphometric Comparison of Resorbable Collagen Sponges with Xenogen Grafts in Terms of New Bone Formation in Sinus Floor Elevations: An Experimental Study in the Rabbits

Abstract

Due to a number of complicated factors, implanting the edentulous posterior maxilla is often a difficult procedure. It is stated that maxillary sinus floor elevation is a predictable treatment option to obtain sufficient bone height and volume for implant placement. In this study, it was aimed to compare the resorbable collagen sponges which are thought to be used in maxillary sinus floor elevation with xenogen graft particles, histopathologically and histomorphometrically in terms of new bone formation. For this purpose; In 16 New Zealand white rabbits, bilateral sinus floor elevation was performed, the cavities formed under the sinus membrane were augmented by placing a collagen sponge on the right side and an equal volume of xenogen grafts on the left side. In the postoperative period, the rabbits were sacrificed at the end of the 4th and 8th weeks, 8 each time. The obtained samples were divided into 4 groups and evaluated histopathologically and histomorphometrically. Results: Histopathological evaluation revealed that the two materials were biocompatible materials and formed a suitable environment for the transfer of osteogenic cells. Histomorphometric evaluations showed that there was no difference between the materials in terms of percentage of new bone formation. (p≤0.05) However, the newly formed bone area and osteoid area were found to be much larger in the areas where xenogen grafts were used (p ≤0.05). Collagen sponge was unable to maintain its volume during the test period and resorbed. Minimal resorption was observed in xenogen graft particles.

Keywords

• Sinus floor elevation
• resorbable collagen sponge
• xenograft
• histomorphometry

References

1. 1. Ekfeldt A, Christiansson U, Eriksson T, Linden U, Lundqvist S, Rundcrantz T, et al. A retrospective analysis of factors associated with multiple implant failures in maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(5):462-7.
2. 2. Kim YH, Choi NR, Kim YD. The factors that influence postoperative stability of the dental implants in posterior edentulous maxilla. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;39(1):2.
3. 3. Bastos AS, Spin-Neto R, Conte-Neto N, Galina K, Boeck- Neto RJ, Marcantonio C, et al. Calvarial autogenous bone graft for maxillary ridge and sinus reconstruction for rehabilitation with dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2014;40(4):469-78.
4. 4. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simplified treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function and tilted implants: A prospective 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S1-12.
5. 5. Lundgren S, Moy P, Johansson C, Nilsson H. Augmentation of the maxillary sinus floor with particulated mandible: a histologic and histomorphometric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(6):760-6.
6. 6. Morand M, Irinakis T. The challenge of implant therapy in the posterior maxilla: providing a rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 2007;33(5):257-66.
7. 7. Raghoebar GM, Timmenga NM, Reintsema H, Stegenga B, Vissink A. Maxillary bone grafting for insertion of endosseous implants: results after 12-124 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(3):279-86.
8. 8. Rickert D, Vissink A, Slot WJ, Sauerbier S, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery with BioOss(R) mixed with a bone marrow concentrate or autogenous bone: test of principle on implant survival and clinical performance. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43(2):243-7.

9. 9. Rodriguez y Baena R, Pastorino R, Gherlone EF, Perillo L, Lupi SM, Lucchese A. Histomorphometric Evaluation of Two Different Bone Substitutes in Sinus Augmentation Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(1):188-94.
10. 10. Sohn DS, Bae MS, Choi BJ, An KM, Shin HI. Efficacy of demineralized bone matrix paste for maxillary sinus augmentation: a histologic and clinical study in humans. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108(5):e30-5.
11. 11. 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. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(3):217–29.
12. 12. Gauthier A, Lezy JP, Vacher C. Vascularization of the palate in maxillary osteotomies: anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat 2002;24(1):13-7.
13. 13. Monje A, Catena A, Monje F, Gonzalez-Garcia R, Galindo- Moreno P, Suarez F, et al. Maxillary sinus lateral wall thickness and morphologic patterns in the atrophic posterior maxilla. J Periodontol 2014;85(5):676-82.
14. 14. Rosano G, Taschieri S, Gaudy JF, Del Fabbro M. Maxillary sinus vascularization: a cadaveric study. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20(3):940-3.
15. 15. Sharan A, Madjar D. Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23(1):48-56.
16. 16. Rosano G, Taschieri S, Gaudy JF, Weinstein T, Del Fabbro M. Maxillary sinus vascular anatomy and its relation to sinus lift surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(7):711-5.
17. 17. Berberi A, Nader N, Assaf RB, Fayyad-Kazan H, Khairalah S, Moukarzel N. Sinus floor augmentation with ambient blood and an absorbable collagen sponge: A prospective pilot clinical study. Implant Dent. 2017;26(5):674–81.
18. 18. Smith MM, Duncan WJ, Coates DE. Attributes of Bio- Oss® and Moa-Bone® graft materials in a pilot study using the sheep maxillary sinus model. J Periodontal Res. 2018;53(1):80–90.
19. 19. Orsini G, Scarano A, Piattelli M, Piccirilli M, Caputi S, Piattelli A. Histologic and Ultrastructural Analysis of Regenerated Bone in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using a Porcine Bone–Derived Biomaterial. J Periodontol. 2006;77(12):1984–90.
20. 20. Dempster DW, Compston JE, Drezner MK, Glorieux FH, Kanis JA, Malluche H, et al. Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: A 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28(1):2–17.
21. 21. Rosen MD, Sarnat BG. Change of volume of the maxillary sinus of the dog after extraction of adjacent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1955;8(4):420-9.
22. 22. Srouji S, Ben-David D, Lotan R, Riminucci M, Livne E, Bianco P. The innateosteogenic potential of the maxillary sinus (Schneiderian) membrane: An ectopic tissue transplant model simulating sinus lifting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;
23. 23. Scala A, Botticelli D, Rangel IG, De Oliveira JA, Okamoto R, Lang NP. Early healing after elevation of the maxillary sinus floor applying a lateral access: A histological study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(12):1320–6.
24. 24. Choi Y, Yun JH, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW. Sinus augmentation using absorbable collagen sponge loaded with Escherichia coli-expressed recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 in a standardized rabbit sinus model: A radiographic and histologic analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(6):682–9.
25. 25. Lambert F, Léonard A, Drion P, Sourice S, Layrolle P, Rompen E. Influence of space-filling materials in subantral bone augmentation: Blood clot vs. autogenous bone chips vs. bovine hydroxyapatite. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(5):538–45.