|
Stephen S. Wallace, DDS1 / Stuart J. Froum, DDS2/ Sang-Choon Cho, DDS3 / Nicholas Elian, DDS4/ Diogo Monteiro5 / Byung Soo Kim5/ Dennis P. Tarnow, DDS6
The purpose of the present study, which used anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) with and without autogenous bone as the augmentation material, was to compare the results of sinus elevation performed without a membrane (control) with the results of sinus elevation performed with either a short-term bioabsorbable membrane (Bio-Gide) or a nonabsorbable membrane (Gore-Tex) with regard to both vital bone formation and implant survival. Sinus lifts were performed on 51 patients (38 unilateral, 13 bilateral) with the delayed placement of 135 implants. Histomorphometric data were obtained at the time of implant placement, 6 to 10 months following the grafting procedure. Vital bone formation was 17.6%, 16.9%, and 12.1%, respectively, for the Bio-Gide, Gore-Tex, and no membrane groups. Of the 135 implants placed there were 3 failures (2 Bio-Gide, 1 Gore- Tex). There was no significant difference between the membrane groups as to vital bone formation and implant survival. (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:551–559.)
1Associate Professor, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New
York, New York
2Clinical Professor, Department of Surgical Services (Periodontics), Clinical Professor and
Director of Clinical Research, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York
3Associate Research Scientist, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York
4Director, Advanced Program for International Dentists, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York
5Implant Resident, Advanced Program for International Dentists, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York
6Professor and Chairman, Ashman Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York
Correspondence to: Stephen S. Wallace, 140 Grandview Avenue, Waterbury, CT 06708;
fax: 203-573-0773; e-mail: sswdds.sinus@sbcglobal.net.
Insufficient residual alveolar bone height is a common deterrent to the
placement of dental implants in the posterior maxilla. This can be the result of alveolar bone resorption following tooth loss, bone loss resulting from periodontal disease, pneumatization of the maxillary sinus, or a combination of the above.
A technique for grafting the floor of the maxillary sinus was first presented in 1977 by Tatum1 and first published in 1980 by Boyne and James.2 Since that time, the sinus grafting surgical technique has been modified by many clinicians, and lateral window techniques today involve the use of at least three distinct entry procedures,3 various bone graft substitutes, and a barrier membrane over the lateral window.
Systematic reviews of periodontal guided tissue regeneration, 4,5 preprosthetic guided bone regeneration6 (GBR), and sinus augmentation surgery7 reveal that barrier membranes have been used with proven efficacy. While many investigators have reported a positive result with barrier membrane placement in sinus augmentation surgery,8–12 fewer studies have compared the results achieved with and without barrier membranes,13–16 and, to date, no study has attempted to compare the results achieved with different types of barrier membranes.
Nonabsorbable barrier membranes require stabilization via fixation to best perform their barrier function. This may be a result of membrane stiffness and a subsequent inability to conform to the bone surface and thereby stabilize the graft and exclude connective tissue. Further, these membranes must be removed with a flap procedure as significant as the one used to place them, with an increase in morbidity for the patient. Some, but not all, bioabsorbable membranes lack this stiffness and conform well to the bony walls of the lateral sinus wall. The lack of stiffness would not be considered a liability, because the
sinus graft is internal. Most bioabsorbable membranes possess a limited barrier function time in comparison to nonabsorbable membranes. These times vary from 1 to 6 months and may not be long enough to produce the desired effect.
The purpose of the present study, which used anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss, Osteohealth) with and without autogenous bone as the augmentation material, was to compare the results of sinus elevation performed without a membrane (control) to the results of sinus elevation performed with either a shortterm bioabsorbable membrane (Bio-Gide, Osteohealth) or nonabsorbable membrane (Gore-Tex, W. L. Gore) with regard to both vital bone formation and implant survival.
Methods and Materials
This study is part of an ongoing sinus elevation study begun in 1993 at the New York University (NYU) Department of Implant Dentistry. All patients in this histologic, histomorphometric, and clinical study chose sinus elevation surgery with implant placement as opposed to alternative treatment plans that were presented. Patients with absolute contraindications (eg, uncontrolled diabetes, long-term steroid use, blood disorders) were excluded from both implant treatment and from this study, while those patients with relative contraindications (controlled diabetes, smoking) were included. All study participants received informed consent and signed the appropriate consent forms. All participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The research protocol for this study was approved by the NYU Institutional Review Board (H11302-01B).
The data for this study were obtained from 64 sinus augmentation procedures performed on 51 patients (13 bilateral augmentations and 38 unilateral augmentations). The grafting material used in these cases was either Bio-Oss alone or a composite graft consisting of Bio-Oss with less than 20% intraorally harvested autogenous bone. The lateral window was left uncovered, covered with a nonabsorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane (Gore-Tex), or covered with a bioabsorbable collagen membrane (Bio-Gide).
Surgical Procedure
The surgical protocol for the lateral window procedure used in this study was reported previously in detail.14 The only procedural differences between the 64 augmentation procedures in the present study involved either the lack of a membrane over the window or the use of either a bioabsorbable or a nonabsorbable membrane over the lateral window osteotomy. All sinuses were grafted with either a 100% bone replacement graft (Bio-Oss) or a composite graft consisting of Bio- Oss plus a maximum of 20% intraoral autogenous bone harvested from the maxillary tuberosity or the mandibular ramus. The nonabsorbable membrane used was e- PTFE (Gore-Tex), and the bioabsorbable membrane was collagen (Bio-Gide). All surgical and prosthetic procedures were performed by implant fellows under the supervision of the implant faculty.
Histologic and histomorphometric analysis
Histomorphometric data were obtained from bone core biopsies retrieved from the area of the lateral window at the time of implant placement, ie, 6 to 10 months after graft placement. The cores were numerically coded and sent to the Hard Tissue Research Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, where they were subjected to a blinded histomorphometric analysis for a determination of the vital bone content.
Implant survival data
Data on implant survival were included only for those implants that were loaded for a minimum of 1 year.
Results
The bone biopsies were evaluated for percentage of vital bone, percentage of residual graft material, and percentage of connective tissue/marrow. The results for the three groups are presented in Table 1. Data on 1-year implant survival rates are provided in Table 2.
Histologic specimens revealed vital bone formation adjacent to particles of Bio-Oss in all specimens. Figures 1 to 3 are representative samples from the no-membrane, Gore-Tex, and Bio-Gide groups, with vital bone formation of 14%, 30%, and 30%, respectively. All undecalcified specimens were stained with Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain and are shown at original magnification of 10x or 20x.
Figure 4 illustrates the osteoconductive properties of the Bio-Oss grafting material. Bio-Oss particles (yellow) were evident everywhere in contact with newly formed bone (red), which was, in turn, covered by a layer of osteoid (green) and numerous osteoblasts (black). Interparticular bridging appeared to connect and solidify the matured graft.
Discussion
As surgical techniques have evolved, so have the use of various grafting materials, barrier membranes over the lateral window, implants with varying macro- and micromorphologies, and new technologies. One hopes that this evolution will result in ever-higher survival rates for implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses. Successful outcomes have been documented in systematic literature reviews for both guided tissue regeneration around teeth4,5 and for preprosthetic GBR prior to implant placement.7,17
Fig 1 (a) Uncovered graft, with 14% vital bone, 43% Bio-Oss, and 43% connective tissue. Foci of vital bone formation (red) can be seen between the residual Bio-Oss particles (yellow) (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x10). (b and c) Higher magnification view (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x20.
Fig 2 (a) Graft covered with membrane (Gore-Tex), composed of 30% vital bone, 29% Bio-Oss, and 41% connective tissue. Vital bone formation (red) is apparent between the residual Bio-Oss particles (yellow) (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x10). (b)
Higher-magnification view (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x20.
There is sufficient evidence today to justify the placement of a barrier membrane over the lateral window. A systematic review has now been published that discusses membrane
Fig 3 (a) Membrane-covered graft (Bio-Gide), made up of 30% vital bone, 22% Bio-Oss, and 49% connective tissue. Vital bone formation (red) is evident between the residual Bio-Oss particles (yellow). A new lateral wall (red) has formed beneath the now-resorbed membrane (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x10). (b) Higher-magnification view (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x20.
Fig 4 Higher-power view of vital bone formation (red) directly on the residual Bio-Oss particles (yellow). Arrows depict osteoid (green) and osteoblasts (black) on almost all surfaces (Stevenel blue and van Gieson stain; original magnification x20)
placement as a co-variable in sinus augmentation surgery.7 This review cited three controlled studies that showed more favorable bone formation and higher implant survival rates when a membrane was used over the sinus graft and window. A randomized controlled trial by Tarnow et al15 using a bilateral sinus model showed that vital bone formation in the membrane covered sinus was, on average, twice that of sinuses not covered by membranes. The present study, as well as controlled trials by Tawil and Mawla16 and Froum et al,14 showed higher implant survival rates on the membrane side than on the control side (Table 3). A systematic review by Wallace and Froum7 further showed that, in 20 additional studies (15 without membrane placement, 5 with membrane placement), implant survival rates for sinuses grafted with particulate grafts were higher when a barrier membrane was placed over the lateral window (93.6% versus 88.7%).
As in a GBR procedure, the membrane appears to exclude nonosteogenic connective tissue from the grafted sinus, with a resultant increase in vital bone formation and an increased rate of implant survival. Clinically, the ingrowth of connective tissue into sinus grafts not protected by a membrane (encleftation) has been reported by McAllister et al.18
We tend not to think of a sinus graft as a form of GBR; yet in reality, it may be considered as a GBR procedure that occurs within a cavity. Murray et al19 demonstrated a phenomenon called the “caging effect” in an animal model. When a membrane was placed over a grafted bone defect, completely sealing the defect from the outside environment, corticalization of the wound surface, contiguity of the graft particles, and increased vascularity of the graft were noted. Bone formation in sinus grafts has been evaluated by Boyne and Kruger, 20 Boyne and James,2 Misch and Dietsch,21 Margolin et al, 22 Smiler et al, 23 Boyne et al,24 and Nevins and Fiorellini.25 These histologic wound healing studies all show that bone formation initiates from the walls and floor of the sinus after the schneiderian membrane has been lifted and displaced. This displacement would expose the vascular supply in the lateral wall, along with the surrounding
perivascular osteoblasts, to the placed graft material, allowing for the “angiogenesis that must precede osteogenesis.”
Bone formation in the grafted sinus is certainly aided by the displacement of the schneiderian membrane, which was shown by Haas et al26 to be avascular and by Hürzeler et al27 to offer minimal osteogenic potential in sinus grafts in an animal model. Bone formation also appears to be aided by the exclusion of the periosteum from the regenerating sinus graft. Once lifted and replaced, the periosteum loses its osteogenic potential and becomes fibrogenic, which would explain the soft tissue encleftation that is seen when a membrane is not used over the window. This is quite similar to the soft tissue ingrowth that occurs into unprotected (no membrane coverage) periodontal and ridge augmentation sites.
As demonstrated in Table 1, this study showed that vital bone formation in sinus grafts was greater when either a nonabsorbable membrane or a bioabsorbable membrane was used (16.9% and 17.6%, respectively), in comparison to sinuses grafted without a membrane (12.1%). There was no statistical difference between the membrane groups. Both were higher than the no-membrane group, but the small sample size for this group did not allow for statistical comparison.
Further, as demonstrated in Table 2, there was no significant difference in implant survival between the nonabsorbable and bioabsorbable membrane groups (97.8% and 97.6%, respectively). This compares with the results of a 5-year prospective study on GBR by Zitzmann et al.28 This study showed no statistical difference in implant survival rates following GBR procedures with either Bio-Oss/Gore-Tex or Bio-Oss/Bio-Gide.
The efficacy of xenografts as a sinus bone replacement graft may be the result of a combination of factors. Foremost would be the osteoconductive capacity of the cancellous xenograft, a feature that may be dependent on pore size. In addition, the xenografts supply minerals that are necessary for bone formation; their density provides stability to the graft and the implants placed in them; and this density persists long-term because these grafts do not completely resorb.
The Bio-Oss grafting material used in this study appears to be a highly effective osteoconductor, with its performance enhanced by the placement of a barrier membrane over the window. The histologic example shown in Fig 4 demonstrates this quite well, with vital bone formed on a majority of the surfaces. Further, significant residual Bio-Oss particles were present in all specimens, with these particles surrounded by vital bone. When implants are placed in these matured bone grafts, the placement procedure creates a secondary wound, with subsequent bleeding. Implant surfaces, particularly those that are textured, retain the blood clot for the eventual bone-implant contact (BIC) that we call osseointegration. Histologic reports of explants taken from the maxillary sinus by Rosenlicht and Tarnow,29 Valentini et al,30 and Scarano et al31 do not show xenograft material in direct contact with the implant surface. This would mean that the residual xenograft in effect increases the mineral content of the resulting matured graft while not interfering with the possibility for BIC. This may help to explain the excellent implant survival rates achieved by Valentini et al,32 Hising et al,33 Hallman et al,34 Yildirim et al,35,36 and John and Wenz37 following the use of this grafting material. These histomorphometric studies, listed in Table 4 with additional data from New York University sinus research studies, all showed percentages of vital bone,
connective tissue, and residual xenograft to be in the order of 25%, 50%, and 25%, respectively, at a time interval of 6 to 12 months after grafting. Because of the residual 25% xenograft volume, a mature graft that is classified as type 3 or 4 by nature of its vital bone content may, in fact, function like bone of type 2 density. These observed histologic and wound healing phenomena may explain why mineralized particulate bone replacement grafts used for sinus augmentation surgery have been shown to perform as well or better than grafts of 100% autogenous bone.7,17
Conclusions
This paper reports on the histologic, histomorphometric, and clinical findings of sinus augmentation surgery with subsequent implant placement using Bio-Oss as a grafting material without membrane placement or with the placement of either a nonabsorbable membrane (Gore-Tex) or a short-term bioabsorbable membrane (Bio-Gide) over the lateral window.
Within the limits of this histomorphometric and clinical study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. Vital bone formation in sinus grafts is improved when a membrane is placed over the window.
2. Vital bone formation is similar with nonabsorbable Gore-Tex and bioabsorbable Bio-Gide membranes.
3. Implant survival is similar with Gore-Tex and Bio-Gide membranes.
4. Bio-Oss demonstrates excellent osteoconductive properties in the grafted sinus.
5. Bio-Oss alone, or as a composite graft with minimal amounts of autogenous bone, results in an extremely high implant survival rate in the grafted sinus (97.8%).
Acknowledgments
We offer our thanks to Michael D. Rohrer and Hari S. Prasad, of the Hard Tissue Research Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, who performed the histomorphometric analyses.
References
1. Tatum OH. Maxillary sinus grafting for endosseous implants. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Alabama Implant Study Group. Birmingham, Alabama,
April 1977.
2. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613–616.
3. Smiler DG. The sinus lift graft: Basic technique and variations. Pract Periodontics Esthet Dent 1997;9:885–893.
4. Reynolds MA, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Branch-Mays GL, Gunsolley JC. The efficacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:227–265.
5. Murphy KG, Gunsolley JC. Guided tissue regeneration for the treatment of periodontal intrabony and furcation defects. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol
2003;8:266–302.
6. Fiorellini JP, Nevins ML. Localized ridge augmentation/preservation. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:321–327.
7. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:328–343.
8. Small SA, Zinner ID, Panno FV, Shapiro HJ, Stein JI. Augmenting the maxillary sinus for implants: Report of 27 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993,8:523–528.
9. Hürzeler MB, Kirsch A, Ackermann K-L, Quinoñes CR. Reconstruction of the
severely resorbed maxilla with dental implants in the augmented maxillary sinus: A 5-year clinical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996,11:466–475.
10. Peleg M, Mazor Z, Chaushu G, Garg AK. Sinus floor augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in the severely atrophic maxilla. J Periodontol 1998,69: 1397–1403.
11. Peleg M, Mazor Z, Garg AK. Augmentation grafting of the maxillary sinus and simultaneous implant placement in patients with 3 to 5 mm of residual bone height. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:549–556.
12. Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Wegscheider W, et al. Retrospective analysis of Frialit-2 implants in the augmented sinus. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:255–267.
13. Jensen OT, Greer RO. Immediate placement of osseointegrated implants into the maxillary sinus augmented with mineralized cancellous allograft and Gore-Tex: Second-stage surgical and histologic findings. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE (eds). Tissue Integration in Oral, Orthopedic, and Maxillofacial Reconstruction.
Chicago: Quintessence, 1992:321–333.
14. Froum SJ, Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Rohrer MD, Cho S-C. Sinus floor elevation using anorganic bovine bone matrix (OsteoGraf/N) with and without autogenous bone: A clinical, histologic, radiographic, and histomorphometric analysis— Part 2 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:529–543.
15. Tarnow DP, Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Histologic and clinical comparison of
bilateral sinus floor elevations with and without barrier membrane placement in
12 patients: Part 3 of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:116–125.
16. Tawil G, Mawla M. Sinus floor elevation using a bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss) with or without the concomitant use of a bilayered collagen barrier (Bio-Gide): A clinical report of immediate and delayed implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:713–721.
17. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2004;24:565–577.
18. McAllister BS, Margolin MD, Cogan AD, Taylor M, Wollins J. Residual lateral wall defects following sinus grafting with recombinant human osteogenic protein-1 or Bio-Oss in the chimpanzee. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:227–239.
19. Murray G, Holden R, Roschlau W. Experimental and clinical study of new
growth of bone in a cavity. Am J Surg 1957;93:385–387.
20. Boyne PJ, Kruger GO. Fluorescence microscopy of alveolar bone repair. Oral
Surg 1962;15:265–281.
21. Misch CE, Dietsch F. Subantral augmentation in Macaca fasicularis: A pilot study [abstract]. J Oral Implantol 1991;17:340.
22. Margolin MD, Cogan AG, Taylor M, et al. Maxillary sinus augmentation in the nonhuman primate: A comparative radiographic and histologic study between
recombinant human osteogenic protein- 1 and natural bone mineral. J Periodontol 1998;69:911–919.
23. Smiler DG, Johnson PW, Lozada JL, et al. Sinus lift grafts and endosseous implants: Treatment of the posterior atrophic maxilla. Dent Clin North Am 1992;36:151–186.
24. Boyne PJ, Marx RE, Nevins M, et al. A feasibility study evaluating rh-BMP-
2/absorbable collagen sponge for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997;17:11–25.
25. Nevins M, Fiorellini JP. The maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure to support implant prostheses. In: Nevins M, Mellonig JT (eds.). Implant Therapy:
Clinical Approaches and Evidence of Success. Chicago: Quintessence,
1998:171–195.
26. Haas R, Baron M, Donath K, Zechner W, Watzek G. Porous hydroxyapatite for grafting the maxillary sinus: A comparative histomorphometric study in sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:337–346.
27. Hürzeler MB, Quinones CR, Kirsch A, et al. Maxillary sinus augmentation using different grafting materials and dental implants in monkeys. Part I. Evaluation of anorganic bovine-derived bone matrix. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:476–486.
28. Zitzmann N, Schärer P, Marinello CP. Long-term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2001;16:355–366.
29. Rosenlicht J, Tarnow DP. Human histologic evidence of functionally loaded
hydroxyapatite-coated implants placed simultaneously with sinus augmentation:
A case report 2 1/2 years post-placement. Int J Oral Implantol 1999;25:7–10.
30. Valentini P, Abensur D, Densari D, Graziani JN, Hammerle C. Histological
evaluation of Bio-Oss in a sinus floor elevation and implantation procedure: A
human case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:59–64.
31. Scarano A, Pecora G, Piattelli M, Piattelli A. Osseointegration in a sinus augmented with bovine porous bone mineral: Histological results in an implant retrieved 4 years after case insertion. A case report. J Periodontol 2004;75:1161–1166.
32. Valentini P, Abensur D, Wenz B, Peltz M, Schenk R. Sinus grafting with porous bone mineral (Bio-Oss) for implant placement: A 5-year study on 15 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:245–253.
33. Hising P, Bolin A, Branting C. Reconstruction of severely resorbed alveolar
crests with dental implants using a bovine mineral for augmentation. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:90–97.
34. Hallman M, Sennerby L, Lundgren S. A clinical and histologic evaluation of
implant integration in the posterior maxilla after sinus floor augmentation with
autogenous bone, bovine hydroxyapatite, or a 20:80 mixture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:635–643.
35. Yildirim M, Spiekermann H, Handt S, Edelhoff D. Maxillary sinus augmentation with the xenograft Bio-Oss and autogenous intraoral bone for qualitative improvement of the implant site: A histologic and histomorphometric clinical study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:23–33.
36. 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;11:217–229.
37. John H-D, Wenz B. Histomorphometric analysis of natural mineral for maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:199–207.
|
