BIOMATERIALS (BONE AND BONE SUBSTITUTES) FOR AUGMENTATION OF THE MAXILLARY SINUS

Biomaterials (Bone and Bone Substitutes) For Augmentation Of The Maxillary Sinus

Biomaterials (Bone and Bone Substitutes) For Augmentation of The Maxillary Sinus

Introduction

Tooth extraction and the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus cause considerable reabsorption which poses a great challenge to the emplacement of dental engrafts in the distal edentulous maxillary region.[1] Treatment of the edentulous posterior maxilla with dental implants becomes complicated as the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus along with reabsorption of crestal bone cause deficient bone volume. For the augmentation of sinus, different bio- materials have been used.[2] Tatum et al. [3, 4] presented the concept of maxillary sinus augmentation in 1986, and outstanding outcomes of this technique in the long run has proven it as a valuable and successful treatment option.

According to Scarano et al. [2], different grafting materials that have been applied for sinus augmentation including autologous bone; freeze-dried allografts that could be either mineralized or demineralized; synthetic polymers; polylactide- polyglycolide materials; coralline calcium carbonate; Bioglass (US Biomaterials, Alachua, FL); calcium sulfate; anorganic bovine bone; and hydroxyapatite.

Boyne and James [5] demonstrates that maxillary sinus augmentation is an authentic method for functional therapy of both partial and complete patients of edentulous. The grafts put in graft sinuses demonstrate a considerable survival rate as compared to those implants place down pristine bone in the non-grafted posterior maxilla. Tadjoedin et al.[1] argues that Autogenous engrafting serves as a paragon as positive results are shown in bone regeneration of patients who get Autogenous bone from different donor sites. Autogenous bone is supplemented or alternated by diverse bone-grafting materials in sinus augmentation that include bovine xenograft[6], freezedried bone allograft [7] and alloplastic material [8]. Del Fabbro et al. [9] claim that sinus augmentation methods are well predictable as 95% success has been reported by many studies. However, the preference of implant material and micro morphology of graft surface has an influence on sinus augmentation and the most appropriate procedure to perform sinus augmentation is still controversial. Some biomaterials are deemed to cause a foreign body reaction, and the perfect biomaterial for sinus augmentation is yet a debatable issue.

Discussion

Sinus Augmentation has been illustrated by means of a range of grafting materials including: autogenous particulate bone graft, non-resorbable HA, DFDBA, particulate, autogenous block grafts, anorganic bovine bone particulate, and BMP-2.

The bioabsorbable or non-resorbable barrier membranes are placed on the lateral sinus window and graft material that help in containment of graft, kept soft tissue encleftation, and improved the success rate of implantation.

Classification of Biomaterial on the basis of their origin and biological profile [10]

Classification

Biological Properties

Founded on

Kinds

Biological

profile

Osteogeneic

Vital cells are directly transferred to the new bone regeneration area.

Living bone cells are placed in to a receptor site and sustains the ability of producing new bone tissue

Osteoinductive

capable to adjust the development of new bone tissue via its support matrix, performing as a hold up or support that can be absorbed and replaced with bone tissue at the same time

Osteopromotive

Guided Tissue Regeneration with acronym (GTR) is allowed through ...