Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Clinical, Radiological, and Histomorphometric Comparison of the Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral and
Seyma Eken1, Berceste Guler Ayyıldız2, Berkan Altay3
1Lecturer, Oral Health Department, Tavsanlı Vocational School of Health Services, Kutahya Health Sciences University, Kutahya, Türkiye.
Background:
Maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) is a standard and predictable procedure to increase bone height in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Many biomaterials are employed in this technique; however, autologous platelet concentrates have been found to reduce clinical recovery time and improve bone gain in MSA.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare the radiographic, histomorphometric, and implant stability outcomes of titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin (T-PRF) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in a two-stage MSA technique.
Study Design, Setting, Sample:
This randomized controlled split-mouth study included patients requiring bilateral two-stage MSA at the Periodontology Department of Kutahya Health Sciences University between March 2022 and April 2023. Patients with systemic comorbidities and residual bone height >5 mm in the bilateral posterior maxilla were excluded.
Predictor Variable:
The predictor variable was the two-stage MSA technique. Each surgical site was randomly assigned to the T-PRF or DBBM group for two-stage MSA.
Main Outcome Variables:
The primary outcome was the histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of new bone between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes included radiographic evaluation of total bone height (ToBH), bone gain, bone density (BD), and graft volume (GV) on cone-beam computed tomography 6 months post-MSA, clinical assessment of primary implant stability at implant placement and secondary stability 3 months postplacement, and histomorphometric evaluation of the percentage of residual particles, percentage of connective tissue, and percentage of blood vessels from bone biopsy samples collected 6 months after MSA.
Covariates:
Age, sex, periodontitis susceptibility, and smoking status were treated as covariates.
Analyses:
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for bivariate comparisons between 2 groups, and the Pearson or Spearman test was used to analyze correlations of variables within groups. A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
The sample was composed of 10 patients with bilateral maxillary sinuses, 20 MSA regions, 8 (80%) males and 2 (20%) females with a mean age of 51.30 (9.06) year. The percentage of new bone was 19.48 ± 14.60 μm2 in the T-PRF group and 8.31 ± 5.47 μm2 in the DBBM group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .074). Radiographic measurements showed ToBH, GV, and BD values of 10.64 ± 3.96 mm, 989.89 ± 523.07 mm3, and 192.09 ± 127.90 hounsfield unit in the T-PRF group and 14.25 ± 1.65 mm, 1,519.39 ± 432.61 mm3, and 492.77 ± 117.35 hounsfield unit in the DBBM group, respectively. ToBH, GV, and BD values were statistically significant between the groups (P = .01 and P = .00). Primary and secondary implant stability in the T-PRF group were 71.11 ± 12.48 implant stability quotient (ISQ) and 68.03 ± 6.81 ISQ, respectively, compared with 67.94 ± 19.84 ISQ and 72.46 ± 11.21 ISQ in the DBBM group. The difference was not statistically significant between the groups (P = .41 and P = .33).
Conclusion And Relevance:
Although T-PRF demonstrated inferior radiographic outcomes compared with DBBM during the initial6-month healing phase, both techniques yielded comparable results regarding new bone formation and implant stability. Further research is warranted to explore the efficacy of different T-PRF applications in MSA. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05596084).
