Bone volume and height changes for lateral window sinus floor elevation using two types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral: A retrospective cohort study of 1–4 years

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1111/clr.14337

Pei Xiao, Cong Chen, Xiaoting Shen, Antian Xu, Mufeed Ahmed Sharaf, Hongye Lu, Fuming He

{"title":"Bone volume and height changes for lateral window sinus floor elevation using two types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral: A retrospective cohort study of 1–4 years","authors":"Pei Xiao, Cong Chen, Xiaoting Shen, Antian Xu, Mufeed Ahmed Sharaf, Hongye Lu, Fuming He","doi":"10.1111/clr.14337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare bone volume and height changes of two types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for lateral window sinus floor elevation (LSFE) with simultaneous implant placement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective cohort study involved 72 patients who underwent LSFE using low-temperature sintered cancellous bone-derived DBBM (C-DBBM) or high-temperature two-step sintered epiphyseal-derived DBBM (E-DBBM). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was acquired preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, 6 months and 1–4 years post-surgery. Bone volume (BV), apical bone height (ABH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and crestal bone level (CBL) were evaluated through three-dimensional fitting and superimposition. Linear mixed models (LMM) were employed to analyze factors influencing the reduction of BV (ΔBV) and ESBG (ΔESBG).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The E-DBBM group showed no significant change in BV 1–4 years post-surgery, while the C-DBBM group demonstrated a significant reduction (<i>p</i> = .006) with volume stability of 85.86%. Bone height in the E-DBBM group increased at 6 months and subsequently decreased at 1–4 years (<i>p</i> = .003). In the C-DBBM group, it decreased at 6 months (<i>p</i> = .014), then further decreased at 1–4 years (<i>p</i> = .001). ΔESBG was lower in the E-DBBM group than the C-DBBM group from immediate postoperative to 1–4 years (<i>p</i> = .009). LMM showed graft material type was the primary factor influencing ΔBV (<i>p</i> = .026) and ΔESBG (<i>p</i> = .003).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Within the limitations of this study, both types of DBBM could achieve favorable clinical outcomes. E-DBBM demonstrated enhanced stability in maintaining bone volume and height.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 11","pages":"1493-1505"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare bone volume and height changes of two types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for lateral window sinus floor elevation (LSFE) with simultaneous implant placement.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective cohort study involved 72 patients who underwent LSFE using low-temperature sintered cancellous bone-derived DBBM (C-DBBM) or high-temperature two-step sintered epiphyseal-derived DBBM (E-DBBM). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was acquired preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, 6 months and 1–4 years post-surgery. Bone volume (BV), apical bone height (ABH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and crestal bone level (CBL) were evaluated through three-dimensional fitting and superimposition. Linear mixed models (LMM) were employed to analyze factors influencing the reduction of BV (ΔBV) and ESBG (ΔESBG).

Results

The E-DBBM group showed no significant change in BV 1–4 years post-surgery, while the C-DBBM group demonstrated a significant reduction (p = .006) with volume stability of 85.86%. Bone height in the E-DBBM group increased at 6 months and subsequently decreased at 1–4 years (p = .003). In the C-DBBM group, it decreased at 6 months (p = .014), then further decreased at 1–4 years (p = .001). ΔESBG was lower in the E-DBBM group than the C-DBBM group from immediate postoperative to 1–4 years (p = .009). LMM showed graft material type was the primary factor influencing ΔBV (p = .026) and ΔESBG (p = .003).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, both types of DBBM could achieve favorable clinical outcomes. E-DBBM demonstrated enhanced stability in maintaining bone volume and height.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用两种去蛋白牛骨矿物质抬高侧窗窦底的骨量和高度变化：一项为期 1-4 年的回顾性队列研究。

摘要比较两种类型的去蛋白牛骨矿物质（DBBM）用于侧窗窦底抬高术（LSFE）并同时植入种植体的骨量和高度变化：这项回顾性队列研究涉及 72 例使用低温烧结松质骨衍生 DBBM（C-DBBM）或高温两步烧结骺端衍生 DBBM（E-DBBM）进行 LSFE 的患者。分别在术前、术后即刻、术后 6 个月和术后 1-4 年进行锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）。通过三维拟合和叠加评估了骨量（BV）、根尖骨高（ABH）、窦内骨增量（ESBG）和嵴骨水平（CBL）。采用线性混合模型（LMM）分析影响 BV（ΔBV）和 ESBG（ΔESBG）降低的因素：结果：E-DBBM组术后1-4年的BV无明显变化，而C-DBBM组显著降低（p = .006），体积稳定率为85.86%。E-DBBM 组的骨高在 6 个月时增加，随后在 1-4 年时降低（p = .003）。C-DBBM 组的骨高在 6 个月时降低（p = .014），然后在 1-4 年时进一步降低（p = .001）。从术后即刻到 1-4 年，E-DBBM 组的ΔESBG 低于 C-DBBM 组（p = .009）。LMM显示移植物材料类型是影响ΔBV（p = .026）和ΔESBG（p = .003）的主要因素：结论：在本研究的限制条件下，两种类型的 DBBM 都能获得良好的临床效果。E-DBBM在维持骨量和骨高方面表现出更强的稳定性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.