Histologic and Immunohistochemical Assessment of the Effect of Various Biomaterials on New Bone Formation in the Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Procedure.

Purpose: To assess the effect of different kinds of biomaterials placed with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) on bone regeneration.

Materials And Methods: Thirty-six New Zealand rabbits were used in the study. A standardized method of surgical approach was used for MSFA under anesthesia in all groups. The procedure was performed for each animal. Six separate groups with 12 cases were created. In group 1, no graft was used in MSFA. Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF), absorbable collagen cone (ACC), venous blood, the combination of ACC and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and the combination of ACC and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) were used in groups 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. At the end of 4 and 12 weeks, three rabbits from each group were sacrificed by applying high-dose anesthetic, and samples were examined histologically and immunohistochemically.

Results: Groups 2 and 5 showed significantly increased new bone formation compared with groups 1 and 4, 4 weeks after MSFA (P < .05). Twelve weeks after sinus floor augmentation, groups 2, 3, 5, and 6 showed significantly higher new bone formation than group 1 (P < .05). Groups 2 and 5 showed significantly higher hard tissue response than groups 1 and 4 at the end of 4 weeks (P < .05). Groups 5 and 6 demonstrated significantly higher hard tissue response than group 1 at the end of 12 weeks (P < .05). Group 5 also showed significantly higher hard tissue response than group 4 at the end of 12 weeks (P < .05). Immunohistochemical analysis showed a significant difference between the osteocalcin scores of groups 2 and 4 and group 1 at the end of 4 and 12 weeks (P < .05). There was also a statistically significant difference between osteocalcin scores at 4 and 12 weeks for groups 1 and 5 (P < .05). When osteopontin scores were compared, there was no significant difference between groups at 4 and 12 weeks (P > .05). Groups 1, 2, and 5 showed significant changes in osteopontin scores between 4 and 12 weeks (P < .05).

Conclusion: The combination of ACC and PRP and the combination of ACC and EMD showed increased new bone formation and hard tissue response. A-PRF also showed promising results in new bone formation at the end of both 4 and 12 weeks. The usage of ACC as a carrier for liquid-form biomaterials may be more beneficial than the usage of ACC alone.