We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 5     1. Oct. 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 5  (01.10.2015)

Page 1128-1136, doi:10.11607/jomi.3810, PubMed:26394350

Histologic and Radiographic Comparison of Bone Scraper and Trephine Bur for Autologous Bone Harvesting in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation
Maridati, Paolo / Dellavia, Claudia / Pellegrini, Gaia / Canciani, Elena / Maragno, Andrea / Maiorana, Carlo
Purpose: The aims of this study were to investigate the best two of five common methods of collecting autologous bone (preliminary study [PS]) and to test clinically the effects of autografts harvested using a trephine bur or bone scraper for sinus augmentation surgery (main study [MS]).
Materials and Methods: In the PS, five autograft samples from five patients (n = 25) were harvested with a bone scraper, round bur, piezoelectric device, implant bur, and trephine bur and were processed for histomorphometric analysis. In the MS, sinus augmentation was performed on 20 patients using bovine-derived bone substitute and autograft collected with a trephine bur (group A, n = 10) or collected with a bone scraper (group B, n = 10). Narrow implants were also placed. At 6 months, changes in graft volume were evaluated with cone beam computed tomography. The amounts of regenerated bone, residual graft, and osseointegration of the implants were assessed histologically.
Results: In the PS, the trephine bur and bone scraper harvested bone chips that were medium to large and more vital than those obtained with the other tools. In the MS, no significant differences were seen between groups in terms of the amount of residual biomaterial, regenerated bone, change in graft volume, and osseointegration.
Conclusion: Biologic differences between these two bone particulates may not influence regeneration and implant osseointegration in sinus augmentation when mixed with xenograft bone.

Keywords: autograft, bone regeneration, cone beam computed tomography, sinus augmentation, tissue harvesting, xenograft