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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Jul;36(7):859-870.
doi: 10.1111/clr.14431. Epub 2025 Mar 17.

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1-Year Multicenter, Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial

Anouck Jue  1 , Justin Pijpe  1   2 , Eppo Wolvius  1   3 , Nadja Naenni  4 , Franz J Strauss  4   5 , Brend Jonker  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Autogenous Bone Versus Bovine Bone Mineral Mixed With 25% Autogenous Bone: A 1-Year Multicenter, Split-Mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial

Anouck Jue et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare autogenous bone (AB) harvested from the mandibular ramus or a mixture of bovine bone mineral (BBM) with 25% locally harvested autogenous bone chips from the maxilla for maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA).

Material and methods: Patients requiring bilateral MSFA and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Maxillary sinuses were randomly assigned (1:1) to one of the two groups: MSFA + AB (AB group) or MSFA + AB + BBM (BBM group). AB was harvested from the mandible (AB group) or locally during MSFA (BBM group). Implants were placed after 4-6 months of healing and loaded 4-6 months later. Patients were examined at baseline (1 month post-loading) and 12 months post-loading. Outcome measures included clinician- and patient-reported outcomes.

Results: Fifty patients with 198 implants were included (AB = 99, BBM = 99). Twelve implants failed before loading (AB = 6, BBM = 6), and three failed post-loading (AB = 2, BBM = 1). Implant survival was 92.9% (AB group) and 93.9% (BBM group) at 12 months post-loading, with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.28-2.54; p = 0.770). Implant success was 98.8% (AB group) and 97.6% (BBM group), with no significant differences between the groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.03-8.05; p = 0.620). No significant differences in marginal bone loss or clinical parameters were found between groups (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction significantly improved at follow-ups compared to screening (p = 0.005).

Conclusion: Implants placed after MSFA with AB or BBM showed comparable results. This indicates that MSFA can be successfully performed without requiring AB from an additional donor site, potentially reducing patient morbidity.

Trial registration: This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register with number NL59578.078.16 on 09-05-2017. The study start date was on 21-08-2017.

Keywords: dental implants; dental prosthesis implant supported; multicenter study; randomized controlled trial; sinus floor augmentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
CONSORT flow diagram. AB, autogenous bone; BBM, bovine bone mineral.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Survival analysis: Survival function (95% CI) by group. AB, autogenous bone; BBM, bovine bone mineral.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
OPT series of a representative case. OPT was acquired at four time points: Before MSFA (a), after implantation (b), and 1 (c) and 12 (d) months after loading.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Adell, R. , Lekholm U., Rockler B., and Brånemark P. I.. 1981. “A 15‐year Study of Osseointegrated Implants in the Treatment of the Edentulous Jaw.” International Journal of Oral Surgery 10, no. 6: 387–416. 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albrektsson, T. , Zarb G., Worthington P., and Eriksson A. R.. 1986. “The Long‐Term Efficacy of Currently Used Dental Implants: A Review and Proposed Criteria of Success.” International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1, no. 1: 11–25. - PubMed
    1. Aludden, H. , Dahlin A., Starch‐Jensen T., Dahlin C., and Mordenfeld A.. 2018. “Histomorphometric analyses of Area Fraction of Different Ratios of Bio‐Oss® and Bone Prior to Grafting Procedures ‐ An in vitro Study to Demonstrate a Baseline.” Clinical Oral Implants Research 29, no. 2: 185–191. 10.1111/clr.13079. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boven, G. C. , Meijer H. J. A., Vissink A., and Raghoebar G. M.. 2020. “Maxillary Implant Overdentures Retained by Use of Bars or Locator Attachments: 1‐Year Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Prosthodontic Research 64, no. 1: 26–33. - PubMed
    1. Boyne, P. J. , and James R. A.. 1980. “Grafting of the Maxillary Sinus Floor With Autogenous Marrow and Bone.” Journal of Oral Surgery 38, no. 8: 613–616. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding