Use of autologous micrografts associated with xenogeneic anorganic bone in vertical bone augmentation procedures with Barbell Technique®.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Bidirectional vertical ridge augmentation in the posterior maxilla is very challenging. PURPOSE: To evaluate the regenerative potential of micrografts, derived from periosteum or bone tissue, added to an anorganic xenograft in vertical reconstruction of the posterior maxilla, by a prospective, controlled study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After clinical selection and the analysis of CBCT scans, 24 posterior maxillary sites, in 19 patients, were treated by using Barbell Technique®. Sites requiring both inlay and onlay reconstruction were enrolled in the study. In the Control Group (CG, n = 8), a xenograft was used in the inlay site and for the onlay site, a 11 mix of xenograft and an autograft was used. In Test Group 1 (TG1, n = 8), both inlay and onlay sites were grafted with the xenograft associated with the micrografts derived from periosteum. In Test Group 2 (TG2, n = 8), both inlay and onlay sites were grafted with the xenograft associated with the micrografts derived from bone. Six months after the procedures, CBCT scans were obtained, and bone biopsy samples were harvested during implant placement surgery. The bone specimens were analyzed histomorphometrically, by measuring the percentages of vital mineralized tissue (VMT), non vital mineralized tissue (NVMT) and non mineralized tissue (NMT). Immunohistochemically, the levels of VEGF were categorized by a score approach. RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis revealed, for the inlay grafts, no significant difference among the groups for VMT, NVMT and NMT. However, for onlay grafts, CG achieved a higher amount of VMT in comparison with TG2, and the opposite occurred for NMT values. In this regard, no statistical difference was observed between CG and TG1. Concerning immunohistochemistry, the VEGF values for CG and TG1 were slightly higher than those obtained by TG2 for both inlay and onlay grafts, but without statistical significance. CBCT analysis showed a similar level of gain for all groups, for both inlay and onlay bone augmentation sites. Clinically, one implant (in CG) within a total of 50 implants installed, had early failure and was replaced after 3 months. All patients received implant supported prosthesis. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that the clinical use of micrograft derived from periosteum may have some potential to increase bone formation in onlay reconstructions, unlike the micrograft derived from bone tissue.