Clinical Comparative Study for Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral and Mineralized Allograft

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of popular bone graft materials mineralized allograft and deproteinized bovine bone mineral.MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seven implants of 78 patients, accompanied by sinus lift using the lateral window technique and simultaneous implantation, were sampled. In addition, some patients with severe systemic conditions were excluded. The initial bone heights of all patients ranged from 3-6 mm. All of the sample cases were treated at our hospital from January 2005 to January 2008. Techniques other than the lateral window technique were excluded, and only one graft material (Tutoplast(R) or Bio-Oss(R)) was accepted for inclusion. Tutoplast(R) was used in 63 implants of 41 patients, whereas Bio-Oss(R) was chosen for the remaining 44 implants of 37 patients. The diameters of the particles used ranged from 0.25-1.0 mm, and the volume was 0.5-2 cc (mean, 1.5 cc).RESULTS: The survival rate of the implant fixtures was 99.07% when the lateral window technique was used. Among all of the cases, cases in which Tutoplast(R) was used demonstrated a survival rate of 98.4%, whereas Bio-Oss(R) resulted in 100% survival. With respect to the alveolar bone height, no significant differences were detected between the two graft materials that failed.CONCLUSION: According to the result reported above, the two common materials for sinus augmentation do not have clinically significant difference. Rather, host factors, such as the height of residual bone, which could be disclosed during questioning patients' systemic conditions, might have greater effects on the prognosis.