Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 14, 2026

Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug versus deproteinized bovine bone mineral for guided bone
Siqi Rao1,2, Jing Zhou1,2, Wei Niu1,2
1Department of Oral Implantology, Changsha Stomatological Hospital, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, No. 844 Wuyi Avenue, Furong District, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Objectives:
To compare a partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug (ACBP) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for guided bone regeneration (GBR), focusing on CBCT-based dimensional outcomes and histomorphometric tissue composition at implant placement.
Materials And Methods:
In this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial, 25 adults requiring GBR for two common indications-posterior maxillary sinus floor elevation or mandibular posterior extraction socket preservation-were randomized to ACBP (n = 12) or DBBM (n = 13), with collagen membrane coverage in both groups. Radiographic endpoints were indication-specific and were reported separately for sinus and socket sites. CBCT was obtained at baseline and 6 months to assess augmented height (sinus sites) and ridge dimensions at standardized levels (socket sites). At 6 months (implant placement), a 3-mm trephine core was harvested for H&E staining and histomorphometric quantification of vital bone (VB, %) and residual graft material (RG, %). Between-group comparisons used independent-samples t tests (two-sided P < 0.05).
Results:
All participants completed the 6-month follow-up. VB did not differ significantly between ACBP and DBBM (38.84 ± 8.37% vs. 32.18 ± 11.04%, P = 0.105), whereas RG was significantly lower with ACBP (11.18 ± 5.48% vs. 19.80 ± 8.23%, P = 0.006). CBCT outcomes were comparable between groups, with no significant differences in sinus height gain (7.82 ± 1.52 mm vs. 8.21 ± 4.30 mm, P = 0.852) or socket-related ridge dimensional changes (all P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
Within a 6-month healing interval, ACBP showed CBCT-based dimensional outcomes comparable to DBBM and a lower residual graft fraction with a similar vital bone fraction at implant placement, suggesting that the observed difference was more related to graft turnover than to greater bone formation.
Clinical Relevance:
At routine implant timing (~ 6 months), use of ACBP was associated with a lower residual graft fraction at re-entry while maintaining short-term CBCT-based dimensional stability.
