Implant Dentistry

Skip Navigation LinksHome > June 2006 - Volume 15 - Issue 2 > Maxillary Sinus Augmentation With Different Biomaterials: A...
Text sizing:
Implant Dentistry:
doi: 10.1097/
Basic and Clinical Research

Maxillary Sinus Augmentation With Different Biomaterials: A Comparative Histologic and Histomorphometric Study in Man

Scarano, Antonio DDS, MD*; Degidi, Marco MD, DDS†; Iezzi, Giovanna DDS, PhD‡; Pecora, Gabriele MD, DDS§; Piattelli, Maurizio MD, DDS∥; Orsini, Giovanna DDS, PhD¶; Caputi, Sergio MD, DDS#; Perrotti, Vittoria DDS, PhD¶; Mangano, Carlo MD, DDS#; Piattelli, Adriano MD, DDS**

Collapse Box


Objective: Rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxilla with dental implants can be difficult because of insufficient bone volume caused by pneumatization of the maxillary sinus and crestal bone resorption. Different biomaterials have been used for sinus augmentation. The aim of the study was to compare different materials in maxillary sinus augmentation in man.

Methods: A total of 94 patients participated in this study. Inclusion criteria were maxillary partial (unilateral or bilateral) edentulism involving the premolar/molar areas, and the presence of 3–5-mm crestal bone between the sinus floor and alveolar ridge. A total of 362 implants were inserted. There were 9 biomaterials used in the sinus augmentation procedures. Each patient underwent 1 biopsy after 6 months. A total of 144 specimens were retrieved.

Results: None of the 94 patients had complications. All implants were stable, and x-ray examination showed dense bone around the implants. Mean follow-up was 4 years. There were 7 implants that failed. Histologic resultsshowed that almost all the particles of the different biomaterials (i.e., autologous bone, demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft Biocoral® [Inoteb, St. Gonnery, France], Bioglass® [US Biomaterials, Alachua, FL], Fisiograft® [Ghimas, Bologna, Italy], PepGen P-15TM [Dentsply Friadent CeraMed, Lakewood, CO], calcium sulfate, Bio-Oss® [Geistlich Pharma AG, Wohlhusen, Switzerland], and hydroxyapatite) were surrounded by bone. Some biomaterials were more resorbable than others. Included are the histomorphometry clarified features of the newly formed bone around the different grafted particles.

Conclusion: All biomaterials examined resulted in being biocompatible and seemed to improve new bone formation in maxillary sinus lift. No signs of inflammation were present. The data are very encouraging because of the high number of successfully treated patients and the good quality of bone found in the retrieved specimens.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.