Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 28;11(9):2491.
doi: 10.3390/jcm11092491.

Long-Term Outcomes of Implants Placed in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Porous Fluorohydroxyapatite (Algipore® FRIOS®) in Comparison with Anorganic Bovine Bone (Bio-Oss®) and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP): A Retrospective Study

Biagio Rapone  1 , Alessio Danilo Inchingolo  1 , Stefano Trasarti  2 , Elisabetta Ferrara  3 , Erda Qorri  4 , Antonio Mancini  1 , Nicola Montemurro  5 , Antonio Scarano  6 , Angelo Michele Inchingolo  1 , Gianna Dipalma  1 , Francesco Inchingolo  1
Affiliations

Long-Term Outcomes of Implants Placed in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Porous Fluorohydroxyapatite (Algipore® FRIOS®) in Comparison with Anorganic Bovine Bone (Bio-Oss®) and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP): A Retrospective Study

Biagio Rapone et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of bone regeneration procedures using algae-derived plant hydroxyapatite (Algipore® FRIOS®) compared with demineralized anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss®), in combination with autologous blood-derived PRP.

Materials and methods: Partially edentulous patients with severe atrophy of posterior maxillary treated by means of the split bone technique in a two-stage grafting procedures were observed for up to seven years after implants placement. After surgeries, the natural porous fluorohydroxyapatite (FHA) (Algipore® FRIOS®; Group, n = 29) or anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss® Group, n = 28) with autogenous bone in a 50:50 composite ratio with PRP, were administered in a 2.8-mm critical-size defect (CSD). Four months later, implants were placed at second-stage surgery.

Results: A sample of fifty-seven consecutive patients who required sinus augmentation was included in the study, and 57 implants were placed. There was no drop out or loss of follow-up of any case. Clinical and radiographic examinations revealed a comparable pattern of newly formed bone in both groups after seven years of functional loading for implants placed after sinus augmentation using porous fluorohydroxyapatite and anorganic bovine bone. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found around implants in both groups.

Conclusions: The favorable implant outcomes suggest both biomaterials are suitable for sinus grafting in severely atrophic maxillae.

Keywords: autogenous bone; biomaterials; implant; jawbone reconstruction; piezosurgery; sinus floor augmentation; vestibular region.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preoperative panoramic X-ray (Group Algipore®).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preoperative panoramic X-ray (Group Bio-Oss®).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Group Algipore®.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Group Bio-Oss®.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Rx after the sinus lift (Algipore® Group).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Rx after the sinus lift (Bio-Oss® Group).
Figure 7
Figure 7
The titanium membrane placement (Group Algipore®).
Figure 8
Figure 8
The titanium membrane placement (Group Bio-Oss®).
Figure 9
Figure 9
The titanium membrane remotion at four months (Group Algipore®).
Figure 10
Figure 10
The titanium membrane remotion at four months (Group Bio-Oss®).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Implants insertion (Group Algipore®).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Implants insertion Group (Bio-Oss®).
Figure 13
Figure 13
The rx of inserted implants (Group Algipore®).
Figure 14
Figure 14
The rx of inserted implants (Group Bio-Oss®).
Figure 15
Figure 15
The definitive crowns of implants (Group Algipore®).
Figure 16
Figure 16
The definitive crowns of implants (Group Bio-Oss®).
Figure 17
Figure 17
Follow-up at seven years implants placement (Group Algipore®).
Figure 18
Figure 18
Follow-up at seven years implants placement (Group Control).
Figure 19
Figure 19
Rx at seven years implants placement (Group Algipore®).
Figure 20
Figure 20
Rx at seven years implants placement (Group Bio-Oss® Group).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Fiorellini J.P., Nevins M.L. Localized ridge augmentation/preservation. A systematic review. Ann. Periodontol. 2003;8:321–327. doi: 10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.321. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McAllister B.S., Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J. Periodontol. 2007;78:377–396. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sethi A., Kaus T. Maxillary ridge expansion with simultaneous implant placement: 5-year results of an ongoing clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2000;15:491–499. - PubMed
    1. Anitua E., Alkhraist M.H., Piñas L., Begoña L., Orive G. Implant survival and crestal bone loss around extra-short implants supporting a fixed denture: The effect of crown height space, crown-to-implant ratio, and offset placement of the prosthesis. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant. 2014;29:682. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3404. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alberktsson T., Dahl E., Enbom L., Engevall S., Engquist B., Eriksson A.R., Feldmann G., Freiberg N., Glantz P.O., Kjellman O., et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J. Periodontol. 1988;59:287. doi: 10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287. - DOI - PubMed