Comparison between conventional and piezoelectric surgical tools for maxillary sinus floor elevation. A randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of conventional rotative instruments and a piezoelectric device for maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery, and to assess whether application of a resorbable membrane reduces resorption of an augmented site in a randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients (59.2 ± 10.7 years, range 38-76 years) needing bilateral sinus floor elevation surgery agreed to participate in this study. In a parallel split mouth design randomized clinical trial, in which the allocation of the surgical technique to be used on the determined sites was randomly assigned, one site was always treated with conventional rotative instruments (control group) and the other site with piezosurgery (test group). In addition, in a random order, the grafted sites were covered with a collagen membrane or no membrane. After a healing period of 3-4 months implants were placed. RESULTS: Comparison of clinical features of the test and control sites revealed no differences with regard to wound healing and complications (perforations of the sinus membrane) during or postsurgery (p = .458, p = 1.0, respectively). A clinically insignificant, but statistically shorter operation time was observed when using conventional rotative instruments (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than using piezosurgery (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes; p < .001). In both groups, application of a resorbable membrane did not result in less horizontal bone resorption (membrane: 1.43 mm, no membrane: 1.06 mm; p = .062); All 193 implants could be placed with primary stability. One year after functional loading, survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that, for maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery, a piezoelectric device shows no advantages over rotative instruments as well as that placement of a barrier membrane did not reduce resorption of the augmented site.

Bone marrow concentrate and bovine bone mineral for sinus floor augmentation: a controlled, randomized, single-blinded clinical and histological trial--per-protocol analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the potential of substituting autogenous bone (AB) by bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Both AB and BMAC were tested in combination with a bovine bone mineral (BBM) for their ability of new bone formation (NBF) in a multicentric, randomized, controlled, clinical and histological noninferiority trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five severely atrophied maxillary sinus from 26 patients were evaluated in a partial cross-over design. As test arm, 34 sinus of 25 patients were augmented with BBM and BMAC containing mesenchymal stem cells. Eleven control sinus from 11 patients were augmented with a mixture of 70% BBM and 30% AB. Biopsies were obtained after a 3-4-month healing period at time of implant placement and histomorphometrically analyzed for NBF. RESULTS: NBF was 14.3%±1.8% for the control and nonsignificantly lower (12.6%±1.7%) for the test (90% confidence interval: -4.6 to 1.2). Values for BBM (31.3%±2.7%) were significantly higher for the test compared with control (19.3%±2.5%) (p<0.0001). Nonmineralized tissue was lower by 3.3% in the test compared with control (57.6%; p=0.137). CONCLUSIONS: NBF after 3-4 months is equivalent in sinus, augmented with BMAC and BBM or a mixture of AB and BBM. This technique could be an alternative for using autografts to stimulate bone formation.