a health technology assessment report on clinical efficacy ... · characteristics of surgical...
TRANSCRIPT
DENT 655- Health Technology Assessment
A Health Technology Assessment Report on
Clinical Efficacy and Cost of Allograft use in
Maxillary Sinus Lift Procedure Performed
by the Lateral Window Technique
by
Vanita Krishnan a
with the expert assistance of
Shahrokh Esfandiarib
April 2013
Report No: S2013.03
a Masters candidate, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
b Associate Professor, Division of Oral Health and Society, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill
University
For more information contact Dr. Shahrokh Esfandiari at [email protected]
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
2
The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University. This report was developed for the course
„DENT 655- Health Technology Assessment‟ and assumes a call from general dentists to assist
decision-making in dental offices, clinical and hospitals. All are welcome to make use of it.
However, to help us estimate the impact, it would be deeply appreciated if users could inform us
whether it has influenced policy decisions in any way.
Suggested Citation: Krishnan, V. & Esfandiari, S. (2013). A Health Technology Assessment
Report on Clinical Efficacy and Cost of Allograft use in Maxillary Sinus Lift Procedure
Performed by the Lateral Window Technique (Report no: S2013.03). Montreal, Canada: Faculty
of Dentistry, McGill University. Retrieved from: https://www.mcgill.ca/dentistryohs/courses-
and-events/dent-655/hta-reports
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The expert assistance of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged:
• Mr. Martin Morris, Liason Librarian, Life Sciences Library, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
• Dr. Shahrokh Esfandiari, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral Health and
Society Research Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
• Dr. Mohammad Ahmad Javaid, M.Sc.Candidate, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
• Dr. Akanksha Srivastava, M.Sc. Candidate, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
• Mr. Michael McMillan, Vice President - Sales & Marketing, Citagenix Inc. ,Laval,
Canada.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
1. Background 7
2. Objective 14
3. Health Outcome 14
4. Methods 14
5. Results 16
6. Cost - Analysis 20
7. Conclusion 20
References 27
TABLES
1. Types of Bone Graft Materials 22
2. Basic Patient Data 23
3. Characteristics of Surgical Procedures 23
4. Summary of clinical efficacy of allografts 24
5. Comparative Studies 24
6. Weighted average of new bone formed using different graft materials 25
7. Weighted average of new bone formed using different types of allografts 25
8. Cost Summary 26
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Rehabilitation of edentulous posterior maxilla with endosseous implants has always proven to be
a challenge due to deficient ridge height attributable to pneumatization of maxillary sinus along
with resorption or loss of alveolar crestal bone. Therefore, procedures such as the maxillary sinus
elevation (lift) with bone augmentation are essential to increase the amount of vertical bone
height in the posterior maxilla for placement of implants. Various types of grafting materials
such as autografts, allografts, xenografts and synthetic bone substitutes have been successfully
used in sinus lifts, however, the question as to which material is the most appropriate for sinus
lifts is still a matter of debate.
Objective
The purpose of this report is to carry out a systematic review, with the objective of estimating the
clinical efficacy, safety, ethical issues and cost-effectiveness of the use of allograft for maxillary
sinus lift procedure with bone augmentation performed by the lateral window technique.
Methods
A computerized systematic search for human studies was performed in all languages covering
the period from January 1996 up to February 2013.The medical literature databases searched
include Medline, Pub Med, Embase, Cochrane library, ADA evidence based dentistry and
International Health Technology Assessment (HTAi).A search for the safety and related ethical
issues was also performed.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
6
Health Outcome
The final health outcome being assessed is the percentage of new bone formation induced by use
of solely allograft in sinus lift procedure. The data is based on the histomorphometric
measurements made on the histological sections obtained from the biopsy specimens of patients
collected after the healing period of the sinus graft.
Results
We found a total of 12 studies which met our inclusion criteria. The included studies are all case
series with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. No randomized controlled clinical trials
were found. The 12 studies included deal with the histomorphometric measurement of
percentage new bone formed by the use of allograft calculated from the histological sections
obtained from biopsy specimens. Of the 12 studies, 5 compared the clinical efficacy of allograft
with those of other bone grafting materials.
Cost Analysis
The aspect of cost was not explicitly treated in any of the studies. This report addresses and
restricts the cost analysis to the cost of only the graft material used in the sinus lift procedure. As
the percentage of new bone formed does not depend on the volume of graft used for the sinus
lift, we have considered the cost of the graft material per cc for calculation of cost-effectiveness.
The average unit cost (per cc) of allograft, xenografts and synthetic bone graft materials are
$265, $132.5 and $104.5 respectively. Cost-effectiveness among different types of allograft is
not included as part of this report.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
7
Conclusion
There is evidence that allograft is clinically efficacious in inducing new bone formation
when used as a bone augmentation material in the maxillary sinus lift procedure.
The weighted average of percentage new bone formed per group and the average unit
costs in US($)/cc of allograft, xenograft and synthetic bone substitute are 34.7%,
38.14%,34.34% and $265, $132.5 and $104.5 respectively.
Taking into account both these parameters and the limitations of this report, it would be
appropriate to comment that the use of xenografts and synthetic bone substitutes prove to
be more cost-effective than the use of allograft in sinus lift procedures.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
8
Clinical Efficacy and Cost of Allograft use in Maxillary Sinus Lift Procedure
Performed by the Lateral Window Technique
1. Background
Maxillary Sinus
The maxillary sinus is a bilateral para-nasal air filled space, which is situated lateral to the nasal
cavity, superior to the maxillary teeth, inferior to the orbital cavity and anterior to the infra-
temporal fossa. The average dimensions of the sinus are 33 mm high, 23 mm wide,
and 34 mm in an anterior-posterior length 15
.It is pyramidal in shape and has an average volume
of 12.5 to 15cc. The sinus cavity is lined with a thin bi-laminar muco-periosteal membrane
known as the Schneiderian membrane (sinus membrane).The sinus opens into the semilunar
hiatus in the middle meatus of the lateral wall of the nose18
.
Maxillary Sinus Lift Procedure
With the increasing popularity of dental endosseous implants as the treatment choice for
replacement of missing teeth, rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxilla has become a
common clinical challenge owing to the insufficient bone volume resulting from pneumatization
of the maxillary sinus along with the resorption or loss of alveolar crestal bone2,20
. The initial
stabilization and long term success of implants have been difficult to achieve in this anatomical
site1,5
. Therefore, procedures such as the maxillary sinus elevation (lift) with bone augmentation
are essential to increase the amount of vertical bone height in the posterior maxilla for placement
of implants. The technique of sinus elevation was developed and introduced into dentistry by
Tatum5 in 1986 and published shortly thereafter by Boyne and James in 1980.However, this
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
9
technique has been modified repeatedly and has evolved as a well documented viable treatment
option for patients with severely resorbed posterior maxillae6.
The primary indication of a sinus lift procedure is for planned re-construction of single, multiple
or completely edentulous posterior maxilla18
. As with any therapeutic procedure, the treatment
success depends on appropriate patient selection, adequate pre-surgical evaluation of the
anatomy coupled with sound surgical procedure and adequate post-surgical management.
Although, there are no absolute contra-indications to the sinus lift procedure, there are relative
contraindications based on certain local and systemic factors. Local factors include presence of
tumors, acute/chronic sinusitis, dental infection, severe allergic rhinitis, chronic use of topical
steroids and systemic factors include radiation therapy, uncontrolled metabolic diseases,
excessive tobacco use etc20
.
Sinus augmentation procedures can be successfully used for implant supported restorations in the
posterior atrophic maxilla when the residual bone is ≤ 5 mm5. This can be accomplished by using
1 or 2 stage approach and the criteria for selecting a 1-stage or 2-stage procedure are based
largely in the anatomic situation and the residual alveolar bone height. Generally, 5 mm of
alveolar bone height is used as borderline for determining when either a 1 or 2 stage procedure
should be used1, 20
. If the residual alveolar bone height is greater than 5 mm, a sinus lift
procedure with simultaneous implant placement are usually performed simultaneously, this is
defined as a 1-stage approach. The 2-stage approach involves a sinus lift procedure, following
the healing period for maturation of the bone graft and then the implant placement is completed.
The 2-stage approach is usually indicated in cases where the residual alveolar bone height is less
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
10
than 5mm1. However, it is essential to note that, the most important factor in determining
whether implant(s) can be placed at the time of the sinus lift procedure is the ability to achieve
initial implant stability in the existing native bone rather than any measure of bone height20
.
The main goal of the sinus lift procedure with bone augmentation is to lift the sinus membrane
from the floor of the sinus, raise it up into the sinus cavity and to fill the newly created space
(between the sinus membrane superiorly and the deficient alveolar ridge inferiorly) with bone
grafting material. The techniques used for sinus lift procedure are differentiated based on the
anatomic location of the osteotomy used to gain access into the maxillary sinus. The most
common procedures used, at present, are the lateral wall antrostomy (lateral window technique)
and the crestal osteotomy technique. The crestal osteotomy technique is considered to be
“technique –sensitive”, “conservative” and “blind” approach to sinus elevation as it does not
allow the operator to visualize the sinus membrane15,20
.
This report deals with sinus lifts
performed only using the lateral window technique.
The lateral window technique is considered to be the most effective and efficient technique to
access the maxillary sinus and perform the sinus lift procedure. In this procedure, a
mucoperiosteal buccal flap is elevated exposing the lateral bony wall of the sinus antrum at the
edentulous region distal to the first premolar where an opening is created. The osteotomy can be
prepared with a high-speed round diamond or a piezo-electric bone surgery device. The
procedure could be completed in 2 ways – first, wherein the lateral bony window (trap
door/hinged window) created is hinged inwards as the superior wall of the newly created space
created for bone grafting (Figure 1 A to C) and second wherein the bony window(access
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
11
window) is reduced to paper-thin layer, which can be easily harvested(access hole) and
incorporated into the bone graft (Figure 1 D to F).Elevation of the sinus membrane is
accomplished with hand instruments with great care to avoid perforation of the membrane. Once
elevated, the newly created space can be grafted with autogenous bone or bone substitutes or a
combination of both. The surgical procedure for implant placement is completed if 1-stage
approach is planned. Finally, the antrostomy and bone graft are covered with a barrier membrane
(usually resorbable membrane) and the flap is sutured.
The most common complication of the maxillary sinus lift procedure with bone augmentation is
the perforation of the sinus membrane which greatly depends on the anatomy of the sinus and the
skill and expertise of the operator15,18, 20
.
Figure 1: Illustration showing 2 techniques for the lateral window procedure to access the maxillary sinus for
bone augmentation. A to C illustrates the first technique - Trap Door/ Hinged Window technique; D to E
illustrates the second technique – Access Window (From Fig.73-6,Pg 690, Newman, M. G., Takei, H.,
Klokkevold, P. R., & Carranza, F. A. (2011).Carranza's Clinical Periodontology., 11th
Edition, Saunders.
Reproduced with permission)
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
12
Bone Graft Materials
Sinus lift procedures aim at increasing the bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with
autologous bone and/ or commercially available bone graft bio-materials. Various grafting
materials have been successfully used, however, the question as to which material is the most
appropriate for sinus lifts is still a matter of debate4.
The four desired properties of bone graft materials are osteogenesis, osteoinduction,
osteoconduction, and osteointegration. The only graft material that contains all four qualities is
autologous bone17
. Osteogenesis is new bone formation that occurs from osteo-progenitor cells
that are present in the graft, survive the transplant, and proliferate and differentiate to osteoblasts.
The process of osteoinduction entails the stimulation and recruitment of nearby undifferentiated
mesenchymal stem cells to the graft site, where the cells are triggered to differentiate into
chondrocytes and osteoblasts. Osteoconduction is the in-growth of vascular tissue and
mesenchymal stem cells into the scaffold structure presented by the graft material.
Osteointegration is described as bonding of the host and the graft material and is vital to graft
survival.
The grafting materials used for sinus augmentation include autogenous bone(autograft),allograft
such as mineralized(FDBA) and de-mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA),
mineralized solvent-dehydrated bone allograft(MSDBA),de-mineralized bone matrix(DBM),
xenografts such as de-proteinized bovine bone granules(Bio-Oss) and synthetic bone substitutes
such as calcium carbonate, polylactide -polyglycolide polymers, calcium sulfate, hydroxyapatite
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
13
etc. A combination of these materials has also been used5,6
. The various bone grafting materials,
with their characteristics, sources, advantages and disadvantages have been discussed in Table 1.
Although, theoretically, the risk of disease transmission exists with allografts and xenografts, it is
essential to note that the modern tissue processing techniques, adherence to good manufacturing
practices, rigid screening of potential tissue donors and sterility-validation studies minimize the
risk of disease transmission from banked tissues3.
Types of Allograft
Although autografts are the gold standard, allografts are much more accepted by patients as the
bone grafting material of choice. The grafts are prepared as fresh, frozen, freeze-dried,
mineralized, and de-mineralized, and are specially supplied by licensed tissue banks as cortical
chips, cancellous powder, cortico-cancellous blend, cortico-cancellous blocks etc. The properties
of the allograft are directly related to the steps taken in processing the material. The different
types of allograft have been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Allografts for maxillofacial and periodontal use are generally de-mineralized freeze-dried bone
allografts (DFDBA) or mineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (FDBA) which are available in
different forms16
. DFDBA have been clinically used almost for over 40 years3,5
. Freeze-dried
bone allograft (FDBA) and de-mineralized freeze dried bone allograft(DFDBA) are both
harvested from cadaverous sources in the same manner, with the difference being that DFDBA
material undergoes the additional step of de-calcification. Exposure of bone morphogenetic
protein(BMP) by de-mineralization of the allograft is thought to enhance the osteogenic potential
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
14
of the graft as they have the capacity to induce a phenotypic change of host pluripotent cells into
osteoblasts and cause bone formation2,3
.
Mineralized solvent-dehydrated bone allograft (MSDBA) is composed of a unique bone
substitute which differs from other forms of bone allograft processed via the standard
cryopreservation with respect to the processes used for tissue preservation and viral inactivation.
There are 5 timed steps involved in it, namely categorized as the proprietary Tutoplast process –
de-lipidization, osmotic contrast treatment, oxidation treatment with hydrogen peroxide, solvent
de-hydration and limited dose of gamma irradiation3,4
. MSDBA facilitates bone in-growth as the
mineral and collagen structures are maintained intact during the solvent preservation process4.
De-mineralized bone matrix (DBM) is a derivative of allograft bone. The advantage to using
DBM is its ability to be molded to fill the desired area with graft material17
. It is prepared by
pulverization of allogenic bone to a consistent size, followed by mild acid extraction of the
mineralized phase of bone14
. Manufacturers of de-mineralized bone matrices add different
carriers to the composite. It is generally available in a reverse-phase medium in paste or putty
consistency. De-mineralized bone matrix is osteoconductive but does not provide structural
support. Osteoinductive capabilities are increased because of the released growth factors during
the demineralization process8,13,14
. For these osteoinductive materials to act persistently, a carrier
(e.g. polaxamer) is used in DBM, so that BMPs can be released slowly and continuously7,8
. In
addition, the cancellous chips offer an osteoconductive scaffold for bone deposition and
remodeling7.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
15
2. Objective
The purpose of this report is to carry out a systematic review, with the objective of estimating the
clinical efficacy, safety, ethical issues and cost-effectiveness of the use of allograft for maxillary
sinus lift procedure with bone augmentation performed by the lateral window technique.
3. Health Outcome
The main health outcome being assessed is the percentage of new bone formation induced by use
of solely allograft in sinus lift procedure. The data is based on the histomorphometric
measurements made on the histological sections obtained from the biopsy specimens of patients
collected after the healing period of the sinus graft. The histomorphometric measurements made
and the percentage of each tissue type in the section ( i.e. newly formed bone, residual graft
material, bone marrow and connective tissue) measured are approximately the cross-sectional
area of each tissue type divided by the cross sectional area of the section1. Identification of the
new bone formation and differentiation from the residual graft particles had been accomplished
by evaluating the different maturity levels between newly formed bone and graft particles by
using differential staining properties, evaluating the different polarization patterns, as well as
evaluating the presence or absence of osteocytes in the lacunae. Graft particles were identified by
their typical appearance, especially the presence of empty lacunae6.
4. Methods
Search Strategy
A computerized systematic search for human studies was performed in all languages covering
the period from January 1996 up to February 2013.The medical literature databases searched
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
16
include Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, ADA evidence based dentistry and
International Health Technology Assessment (HTAi). A combination of MeSH subheadings and
keywords were used for the search. The search terms used were ([Sinus Floor Augmnetation] OR
[Maxillary Sinus] OR [sinus lift] OR [sinus floor] OR [sinus augment*]) AND ([Bone Matrix]
OR [deminerali?ed bone matrix] OR [minerali?ed bone matrix] OR [cancellous bone chip*] OR
[DBM] OR [bone allograft]) were used. A search for safety and related ethical issues were also
performed. Manual search of journals was not performed. The search was performed by one
reviewer(V.K.)
Inclusion Criteria
Human studies, in English language, assessing the final outcome (i.e. percentage of new bone
formed) of maxillary sinus lift procedure with use of solely allograft (100% only allograft) were
included. The review exclusively focused on studies applying the lateral window technique for
sinus lift and having a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Studies comparing allograft with
other bone substitutes were included, if the outcome measure could be identified for allograft.
Exclusion Criteria
Articles reporting allograft mixed with other bone substitutes or platelet-rich plasma were
excluded. Publications with unavailability of full text were excluded. In addition, studies
addressing additional augmentation procedures at the same site and studies with insufficient or
missing data about quantitative measurement of new bone formed were excluded.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
17
Selection of Studies
The titles derived from this broad search were initially screened. Following this, the abstracts of
all selected titles were assessed and screened for meeting the inclusion criteria. If the title and
abstract did not provide sufficient information regarding the inclusion criteria, the full text was
obtained as well. Finally, the selection based on inclusion and exclusion criteria was made for
full –text articles by one reviewer (V.K.). For this purpose, Material and Methods and Results of
these studies were screened.
Quality Assessment
The quality assessment of the included studies was undertaken by two reviewers (V.K. and M.
J.) independently using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS)
checklist19
. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Data Extraction
Data were extracted by one reviewer (V.K.) and all the relevant characteristics of the study were
recorded. From the selected papers, data were extracted on author(s), year of publication, study
design, total number of patients, total number of sinuses grafted, follow-up period, baseline
height of the residual alveolar crest (mm), type of graft used and percentage of new bone formed.
5. Results
Study Characteristics
By electronic literature search, a total of 404 titles were identified, of which, 241 titles were
duplicates and were eliminated.163 abstracts were reviewed , full text analysis with quality
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
18
assessment included 29 articles. Finally, 12 studies have been included in this report. The search
result is outlined in Figure 2. The included studies are all prospective case series except a study
by Cammack et al (2005) which is a retrospective case series. No randomized controlled clinical
studies and articles about safety and ethical issues were found.
Exclusion of Studies
The reasons for excluding studies after the full text was obtained were : Follow –up time less
than 6 months (5 articles), not measuring the final outcome quantitatively as % of new bone
COMPUTERIZED LITERATURE SEARCH: 404 Titles
DUPLICATE ARTICLES: 241
ABSTRACTS REVIEWED: 163
FULL TEXT OBTAINED: 29
TOTAL ARTICLES INCLUDED: 12
QU
AL
ITY
CH
EC
K
AS
SE
SS
ME
NT
Figure 2: Search Strategy Used for Identification of Studies
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
19
formed (5 articles), use of mixture of grafts (4 articles), focus on other outcomes(2 articles) and
use of surgical technique than lateral window (1 article).
Included Studies
Twelve articles were selected for inclusion in this report and they deal with the
histomorphometric measurement of percentage new bone formed by the use of allograft. The
basic patient data of these 12 studies is summarized in Table 2. Ten studies reported inclusion-
exclusion criteria for their patients with mention of the administration of antibiotics as part of pre
and post surgical management protocol. Most often, patients with a history of sinusitis, immune
system disorders and uncontrolled systemic diseases were excluded. The details of the surgical
approach, simultaneous/staged implant placement, use of barrier membrane to cover the lateral
window, sinus membrane perforations, time and number of biopsies have been illustrated in
Table 3.
In the 12 studies, variety of allograft have been used and the following parameters were
quantitatively assessed (1) percentage of newly formed bone (2) percentage of residual graft (3)
percentage of soft tissue and connective tissue formed,, using histomorphometric methods. The
details of these 12 studies exhibiting the clinical efficacy of allograft in sinus lift procedure are
illustrated in Table 4. Of the 12 articles, 5 studies compared the new bone forming ability of
allograft with that autografts, xenografts and synthetic bone substitutes and have been
summarized in Table 5. The included studies revealed considerable variation in design i.e. the
baseline height of the residual alveolar ridge, type of allograft used, number of sinuses grafted,
number of biopsies, length of observation period. Among the included studies, a study by
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
20
Scarano et al (2006) had the largest sample size of 144 sinus grafts and it compared the use of 9
different graft materials in sinus lift procedure, thereby, contributing majority of the data for
comparison of bone graft groups as against the other 4 comparative studies which had smaller
sample sizes and comparison groups. The results were expressed in Mean ± S.D. format only in
the study by Scarano et al.(2006). Therefore, meta-analysis was not applicable. However, as it
would be unethical to draw conclusions based on the results of one study (Scarano et al 2006),
we decided to use the data from the other 4 comparative studies as well, therefore, we have used
weighted average to compare the results. For purpose of calculation of results, in those studies
where number of biopsies were not mentioned, we have made an assumption that 1 biopsy was
obtained from each grafted sinus and hence, number of biopsies obtained is equal to the number
of sinuses grafted. The results of the weighted average from the 5 comparative studies of
allograft as opposed to other type of bone graft materials are presented in Table 6.
Within the limits of the study, histomorphometric measurements have demonstrated that
autografts (40.1% ) have the greatest potential for new bone formation, followed by xenografts
(38.14%), allografts (34.7% ) and synthetic bone substitutes(34.34%).Similarly, the results of the
weighted average of different types of allograft obtained from the 12 studies have been presented
in Table 7. Within the limits of the study, MSDBA(36.82%) has been shown to have greater
potential for new bone formation as compared to DFBDA(33.48%), FDBA(32.08%),
DBM(29.18) and CCBB(26.1%). Irrespective of the differences in weighted average of the
percentage new bone formed, it is essential to note that new bone formation was observed in all
the specimens that were taken from augmented sinus areas regardless of grafting materials.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
21
6. Cost Analysis
The aspect of cost was not explicitly treated in any of the studies. It is quite evident that there are
number of direct and in-direct costs involved in sinus lift procedure with bone augmentation.
However, this report addresses and restricts the cost analysis to the cost of only the graft material
used in the sinus lift procedure. The range and the average costs of the commercially available
bone graft materials have been calculated by taking into account the current market prices of a
minimum of 2 products per type of graft material and have been detailed in Table 8. For the
purpose of cost analysis, we have assumed that 1 CAN ($) =1US ($) and DBM has been
included in the group of allograft, although it is a derivative of allograft.
As the percentage of new bone formed does not depend on the volume of graft used for the sinus
lift, we have considered the cost of the graft material per cc for calculation of cost-effectiveness.
The average unit cost (per cc) of allograft, xenografts and synthetic bone graft materials are
$265, $132.5 and $104.5 respectively. Autografts has been excluded from the cost-analysis
owing to it being the gold-standard graft and it has its own advantages and disadvantages as
discussed earlier. Cost-effectiveness among different types of allograft is not included as part of
this report.
7. Conclusion
There is evidence that allograft is clinically efficacious in inducing new bone formation when
used as a bone augmentation material in the maxillary sinus lift procedure. The weighted average
of percentage new bone formed per group and the average unit costs in US($)/cc of allograft,
xenograft and synthetic bone substitute are 34.7%, 38.14%,34.34% and $265, $132.5 and $104.5
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
22
respectively. Taking into account both these parameters and the limitations of this report, it
would be appropriate to comment that the use of xenografts and synthetic bone substitutes prove
to be more cost-effective than the use of allograft in sinus lift procedures.
This report has a number of limitations as the included studies are all case series. Also, the
percentage of new bone formed could vary as per the biopsy sites and also the software used for
histomorphometric analysis. It is, therefore essential to have larger studies such as randomized
controlled clinical trials to lead to more definitive conclusions to provide evidence-based
information to the clinicians regarding the selection of a cost-effective graft material for sinus
lifts.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
23
Table 1: Types of Bone Graft Materials
TYPE OF
GRAFT
CHARACTER--
ISTICS ADVANTAGES
DISADVAN-
TAGES
SOURCES/
EXAMPLES
AUTO-
GRAFT
Grafts transferred
from one site to
another site within
the same individual16
.
Gold standard graft
-Osteogenic,
osteoinductive
and osteoconductive
properties
-No fear of disease
transmission and
antigenicity
-Need for second
surgery
-Donor site
morbidity
-May be available
in limited
quantities4
Extraoral
sources :iliac
crest, anterior
tibia
Intraoral
sources:
mandibular
symphysis,
maxillary
tuberosity etc
ALLO-
GRAFT
A graft that taken
from a
member of the same
species as the
recipient but is
genetically
dissimilar17
- Easily available
without second
surgery
-Osteoconductive and
osteo-inductive*
properties
- Closely matches the
recipient in
constitutional
elements and
Architecture16
-Could trigger
immune reactions3
Cadaver cortical/
cancellous bone,
Freeze Dried
Bone Allograft
(FDBA) , De-
mineralized
Freeze-Dried
Bone Allograft
(DFDBA),De-
mineralized
Bone
Matrix(DBM)
XENO-
GRAFT
A graft derived from
genetically different
species
than the recipient17
- Common alternative
to autogenous bone
- Osteoconductive
properties8
-Slow turnover rate
of cortical bone16
-Could trigger
immune
reactions3,16
De-proteinized
Bovine Bone
granules (Bio-
Oss)
SYNTHE-
-TIC
BONE
Fabricated graft
materials
-Osteoconductive
properties
-Available in
unlimited volume
-No potential to
transmit -disease
-Could trigger
immune reactions16
Calcium sulfate,
bioactive
glasses,
Hydroxyapaptite,
Beta-tricalcium
phosphate etc.
(*)indicates DBM8,13
and DFDBA15
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
24
NO. OF AGE BASELINE NO. OF
PATIENTS (years) BONE ht. UNILATERAL BILATERAL TOTAL NO.OF IMPLANTS
(N) (mm) (only) SINUSES GRAFTED(n) PLACED
2001 Karabuda et al. 8 29-65 6.3 (1-8) 7 1 9 19
2005 Cammack et al. 44 21-76 ≤5 38 3 44 NS
2005 Noumbissi et al. 7 56-81 ≤5 4 3 10 NS
2006 Gapski et al. 4 42-62 NS 4 0 4 7
2006 Scarano et al. 94 52-68 35 44 50 144 362
2008 Kolerman et al. 19 43-78 ≤6 15 4 23 NS
2009 Kim et al. 8 31-62 <6 6 2 10 16
2009 Sohn et al. 5 41-67 3.2(1-6) 5 0 5 13
2010 Avila et al. 20 23-69 NS 17 3 23 39
2010 Chaushu et al. 31 25-65 ≤4 31 0 31 76
2011 Annibali et al. 7 31-70 ≤4 3 4 11 25
2012 Kolerman et al. 5 54-65 <5 0 5 10 NS
NO. OF SINUS LIFTS
YEAR AUTHOR
SIMULTANEOUS SURGICAL MEMBRANE NO. OF SINUSES TIME OF NO. OF
IMPLANT PLACEMENT/ APPROACH COVERAGE OF WITH MEMBRANE BIOPSY BIOPSIES
STAGED APPROACH FOR SINUS LIFT LATERAL WINDOW PERFORATION (months)
2001 Karabuda et al. Simultaneous/Staged Trap Door NO 2 6 NS
2005 Cammack et al. NS NS Resorbable NS 6 to 36 NS
2005 Noumbissi et al. Staged Trap Door NO NS 10 NS
2006 Gapski et al. Staged Access Hole NO NS 6 to 7.2 NS
2006 Scarano et al. Simultaneous Trap Door NO 0 6 144
2008 Kolerman et al. Staged Access Hole Resorbable NS 9 23
2009 Kim et al. NS Access Hole Resorbable NS 6.2 8
2009 Sohn et al. Simultaneous Access Hole NO 2 6 5
2010 Avila et al. NS NS Resorbable 5 6 NS
2010 Chaushu et al. Simultaneous NS Resorbable 6 9 31
2011 Annibali et al. Staged Trap Door Resorbable 0 8.1 11
2012 Kolerman et al. Staged NS Resorbable 0 9 10
YEAR AUTHOR
Table 2: Basic Patient Data
All the studies mentioned in the above table are case series. NS: Not Specified
Table 3: Characteristics of Surgical Procedures
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
25
TYPE OF NO. OF SINUSES BASELINE % OF NEW % SOFT TISSUE FORMED % RESIDUAL
ALLOGRAFT GRAFTED BONE ht. BONE (MARROW & GRAFT
(n) (mm) FORMED CONNECTIVE TISSUE)
2001 Karabuda et al. DFDBA 1 6.3 (1-8) 70-75 15 5 to 10
FDBA 31 41.07 ± 19.17 51.18 ± 22.71 9.56 ± 17.86
DFDBA 13 36 ± 19.12 53.89 ± 16.97 10.11 ± 12.80
2005 Noumbissi et al. MSDBA 6 ≤5 40.33 NS 4.67
2006 Gapski et al. MSDBA 1 NS 68.9 NS NS
2006 Scarano et al. DFDBA 16 3 to 5 29 ± 2.3 37 ± 1.6 34 ± 1.2
2008 Kolerman et al. FDBA 23 ≤6 29.1 ± 9.78 51.91 ± 7.49 19 ± 9.34
2009 Kim et al. DBM +CC 10 <6 23.8 ± 4.2 67.2 ± 9.4 9.1 ± 8.1
2009 Sohn et al. DBM + CC 5 3.2(1-6) 37.8 ± 20.9 31.1 ± 9.6 NS
2010 Avila et al. FDBA 23 NS 23.02 ± 19.11 54.73 ± 13.51 22.25 ± 20.3
2010 Chaushu et al. CCBB 31 ≤4 26.1 ± 15 49.2 ± 20.4 24.7 ± 19.4
2011 Annibali et al. MSDBA 11 ≤4 32 ± 1.6 34 ± 1.6 31 ± 1.4
2012 Kolerman et al. FDBA 5 <5 31.8 46.7 21.5
2005 Cammack et al. ≤5
YEAR AUTHOR
TOTAL NO. OF BASELINE TIME OF % OF NEW
SINUSES BONE ht. BIOPSY TYPE OF GRAFT MATERIAL NO.OF SINUSES BONE FORMED
GRAFTED (mm) (months) GRAFT (GROUPS) GRAFTED PER GROUP
ALLO DFBP (DFDBA) 1 70-75
XENO DBBG 5 50
SYN PHA 3 20-35
ALLO MSDBA 6 40.33
ALLO+XENO * DFDBA+DBBG(1:1) 4 38.75
ALLO MSDBA 1 68.9
ALLO+AUTO * MSDBA + autogenous bone 3 74.8
ALLO DFDBA 16 29 ± 2.3
AUTO Autologous bone 16 40.1 ± 3.2
Calcium Carbonate 16 39 ± 3.1
Bioactive Glass 16 31 ± 1.9
Polymer of Polylactic & Polyglycolide Acids 16 33 ± 2.2
Calcium Sulfate 16 38 ± 3.2
Hydroxyapatite 16 32 ± 2.5
Bovine deproteinized bone 16 39 ± 1.6
Bovine derived bone and peptide 16 37 ± 2.3
ALLO FDBA 5 31.8
XENO DBBM 5 27.2
COMPARISON GROUPS
≤5
6.3 (1-8) 6
10
NS 6 to 7.2
SYN
XENO
2006 Scarano et al. 144 3 to 5 6
YEAR AUTHOR
2006 Gapski et al. 4
2001 Karabuda et al. 9
2005 Noumbissi et al. 10
2012 Kolerman et al. 10 <5 9
Table 4: Summary of clinical efficacy of allografts
DFDBA: De-Mineralized Freeze Dried Bone Allograft, FDBA: Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft, MSDBA :
Mineralized Solvent Dehydrated Bone Allograft, RPMBA : Radiation Preserved Bone Allograft, DBM: De-
Mineralized Bone Matrix, CC- Cancellous Chips, CCBB: Cotico-Cancellous Bone Block, NS : Not Specified
Table 5: Comparative Studies
(*) indicates that the data has not been included in calculation of weighted average
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
26
TYPE OF NO.OF SINUS Avg. % OF NEW TOTAL NO.OF WEIGHTED AVG. OF %
GRAFT BIOPIES BONE FORMED BIOPSIES NEW BONE FORMED
(GROUPS) PER GROUP PER GROUP
Autograft 2006 Scarano et al. 16 40.1 16 40.1
2001 Karabuda et al. 1 72.5
2005 Noumbissi et al. 6 40.33
2006 Gapski et al. 1 68.9
2006 Scarano et al. 16 29
2012 Kolerman et al. 5 31.8
2001 Karabuda et al. 5 50
16 39
16 37
2012 Kolerman et al. 5 27.2
2001 Karabuda et al. 3 27.5
16 39
16 31
16 33
16 38
16 32
29
42
83
34.7
38.14
34.34
YEAR AUTHOR
Allograft
Xenograft
Synthetic
2006 Scarano et al.
2006 Scarano et al.
TYPE OF NO.OF SINUS Avg. % OF NEW TOTAL NO.OF WEIGHTED AVG. OF %
ALLOGRAFT BIOPSIES BONE FORMED BIOPSIES NEW BONE FORMED
(GROUPS) PER GROUP PER GROUP
2001 Karabuda et al. 1 72.5
2005 Cammack et al. 13 36
2006 Scarano et al. 16 29
2005 Cammack et al. 31 41.07
2008 Kolerman et al. 23 29.1
2010 Avila et al. 23 23.02
2012 Kolerman et al. 5 31.8
2009 Kim et al. 8 23.8
2009 Sohn et al. 5 37.8
2005 Noumbissi et al. 6 40.33
2006 Gapski et al. 1 68.9
2011 Annibali et al. 11 32
CCBB 2010 Chaushu et al. 31 26.1 31 26.1
36.82
YEAR AUTHOR
DFDBA
FDBA
DBM + CC
30
82
13
33.48
32.08
29.18
MSDBA 18
Table 6: Weighted average of new bone formed using different graft materials
Data used in this table is from the 5 comparative studies detailed in Table 5.
Table 7: Weighted average of new bone formed using different types of allografts
Table
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
27
TYPE OF PRICE RANGE AVG. PRICE
BONE GRAFT US ($) / per cc US ($)
ALLOGRAFT 80 to 450 265
XENOGRAFT 125 to 140 132.5
SYNTHETIC 84 to 125* 104.5
8: Cost Summary
cc : cubic centimeter, (*) indicates price in CAN($)
Assumption : 1 CAN($) = 1 US($)
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
28
REFERENCES:
1. Karabuda, C., Ozdemir, O., Tosun, T., Anil, A., & Olgaç, V. (2001). Histological and
clinical evaluation of 3 different grafting materials for sinus lifting procedure based on 8
cases. Journal of Periodontology, 72(10), 1436-1442.
2. Cammack 2nd, G. V., Nevins, M., Clem 3rd, D. S., Hatch, J. P., & Mellonig, J. T. (2005).
Histologic evaluation of mineralized and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft for
ridge and sinus augmentations. The International journal of periodontics & restorative
dentistry, 25(3), 231.
3. Noumbissi, S. S., Lozada, J. L., Boyne, P. J., Rohrer, M. D., Clem, D., Kim, J. S., &
Prasad, H. (2005). Clinical, histologic, and histomorphometric evaluation of mineralized
solvent-dehydrated bone allograft (Puros) in human maxillary sinus grafts. Journal of
Oral Implantology, 31(4), 171-179.
4. Gapski, R., Neiva, R., Oh, T. J., & Wang, H. L. (2006). Histologic analyses of human
mineralized bone grafting material in sinus elevation procedures: a case series. The
International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry, 26(1), 59.
5. Scarano, A., Degidi, M., Iezzi, G., Pecora, G., Piattelli, M., Orsini, G., ... & Piattelli, A.
(2006). Maxillary sinus augmentation with different biomaterials: a comparative
histologic and histomorphometric study in man. Implant dentistry,15(2), 197-207.
6. Kolerman, R., Tal, H., & Moses, O. (2008). Histomorphometric analysis of newly formed
bone after maxillary sinus floor augmentation using ground cortical bone allograft and
internal collagen membrane. Journal of periodontology, 79(11), 2104-2111.
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
29
7. Kim, D. M., Nevins, M. L., Camelo, M., Camelo, J. M., Schupbach, P., Hanratty, J. J., ...
& Nevins, M. (2009). The efficacy of demineralized bone matrix and cancellous bone
chips for maxillary sinus augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 29, 415-423.
8. Sohn, D. S., Bae, M. S., Choi, B. J., An, K. M., & Shin, H. I. (2009). Efficacy of
demineralized bone matrix paste for maxillary sinus augmentation: a histologic and
clinical study in humans. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology,
and Endodontology, 108(5), e30-e35.
9. Avila, G., Neiva, R., Misch, C. E., Galindo-Moreno, P., Benavides, E., Rudek, I., &
Wang, H. L. (2010). Clinical and histologic outcomes after the use of a novel allograft for
maxillary sinus augmentation: a case series. Implant Dentistry, 19(4), 330-341.
10. Chaushu, G., Vered, M., Mardinger, O., & Nissan, J. (2010). Histomorphometric
Analysis After Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Using Cancellous Bone–Block
Allograft. Journal of periodontology, 81(8), 1147-1152.
11. Annibali, S., Cristalli, M. P., La Monaca, G., Bignozzi, I., Scarano, A., Corrado, R., & Lo
Muzio, L. (2011). Human Maxillary Sinuses Augmented With Mineralized, Solvent-
Dehydrated Bone Allograft: A Longitudinal Case Series.Implant Dentistry, 20(6), 445.
12. Kolerman, R., G. R. Samorodnitzky-Naveh, et al. (2012). "Histomorphometric analysis
of newly formed bone after bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation using two different
osteoconductive materials and internal collagen membrane." International Journal of
Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 32(1): e21-28.
13. Zhang, M., Powers Jr, R. M., & Wolfinbarger Jr, L. (1997). A quantitative assessment of
osteoinductivity of human demineralized bone matrix. Journal of periodontology, 68(11),
1076-1084
Vanita Krishnan
DENT 655
30
14. Bostrom, M. P., & Seigerman, D. A. (2005). The clinical use of allografts, demineralized
bone matrices, synthetic bone graft substitutes and osteoinductive growth factors: a
survey study. HSS Journal, 1(1), 9-18
15. Tiwana, P. S., Kushner, G. M., & Haug, R. H. (2006). Maxillary sinus
augmentation. Dental Clinics of North America, 50(3), 409-424
16. Precheur, H. V. (2007). Bone graft materials. Dental Clinics of North America,51(3),
729-746.
17. Kao, S. T., & Scott, D. D. (2007). A review of bone substitutes. Oral and maxillofacial
surgery clinics of North America, 19(4), 513-521
18. Stern, A., & Green, J. (2012). Sinus lift procedures: an overview of current
techniques. Dental Clinics of North America, 56(1), 219
19. Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J. (2003).
Methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS): development and
validation of a new instrument. ANZ journal of surgery, 73(9), 712-716
20. Newman, M. G., Takei, H., Klokkevold, P. R., & Carranza, F. A. (2011).Carranza's
clinical periodontology. Saunders