Cargando…

The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)

The aim of the study was to compare various methods used for the bone reconstruction in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus during sinus lift surgery; in addition, we aimed to study the effect of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on the healing process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experiments...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trubushkina, E.M., Boyko, E.M., Stomatov, D.V., Rzhepakovsky, I.V., Piskov, S.I., Yeldashev, D.S.-A., Kutsenko, A.A., Dolgalev, A.A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Privolzhsky Research Medical University 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35993000
http://dx.doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.1.05
_version_ 1784768202607165440
author Trubushkina, E.M.
Boyko, E.M.
Stomatov, D.V.
Rzhepakovsky, I.V.
Piskov, S.I.
Yeldashev, D.S.-A.
Kutsenko, A.A.
Dolgalev, A.A.
author_facet Trubushkina, E.M.
Boyko, E.M.
Stomatov, D.V.
Rzhepakovsky, I.V.
Piskov, S.I.
Yeldashev, D.S.-A.
Kutsenko, A.A.
Dolgalev, A.A.
author_sort Trubushkina, E.M.
collection PubMed
description The aim of the study was to compare various methods used for the bone reconstruction in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus during sinus lift surgery; in addition, we aimed to study the effect of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on the healing process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experiments were carried out using the North Caucasian sheep. Maxillary sinus lift surgery was performed on the animals under general anesthesia. The skin and muscle fascia were dissected layer-by-layer providing the optimal conditions for bone preparation; then, three bone windows were made on each side of the head. Two windows were sawn out with a spherical bur, the third window — with a hollow bur and part of the anterior wall was taken out. On one side, the mucous membrane of the maxillary sinus was pulled and perforated; on the other side, the sinus lift was performed with no membrane perforation. On each side, one window was left uncovered, the second was closed with a collagen membrane, and the third was closed with a bone cover. After 30 and 60 days, the sheep were taken out of the experiment in groups of three; samples were collected from the operated areas and examined using computed microtomography and histology. RESULTS: According to the histological study, the bone repair process developed normally regardless of the surgery technique. The process started with the appearance of granulation tissue and connective tissue cords; in the final stages, cellular differentiation, pronounced osteoblastic activity, and inter-beam formation were seen. The most active regeneration was observed in the areas where the bone defects were closed with a collagen membrane, and especially in the windows made with no perforation of the maxillary sinus membrane. The microtomographic and histological tests proved that perforation of the mucous membrane during the sinus lift operation impaired bone tissue regeneration. CONCLUSION: The obtained results suggest that the most promising way to close a bone defect in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus is the use of a collagen membrane; therefore, we recommend choosing this approach for sinus lift surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9376757
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Privolzhsky Research Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93767572022-08-19 The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study) Trubushkina, E.M. Boyko, E.M. Stomatov, D.V. Rzhepakovsky, I.V. Piskov, S.I. Yeldashev, D.S.-A. Kutsenko, A.A. Dolgalev, A.A. Sovrem Tekhnologii Med Biotechnologies The aim of the study was to compare various methods used for the bone reconstruction in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus during sinus lift surgery; in addition, we aimed to study the effect of maxillary sinus membrane perforation on the healing process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experiments were carried out using the North Caucasian sheep. Maxillary sinus lift surgery was performed on the animals under general anesthesia. The skin and muscle fascia were dissected layer-by-layer providing the optimal conditions for bone preparation; then, three bone windows were made on each side of the head. Two windows were sawn out with a spherical bur, the third window — with a hollow bur and part of the anterior wall was taken out. On one side, the mucous membrane of the maxillary sinus was pulled and perforated; on the other side, the sinus lift was performed with no membrane perforation. On each side, one window was left uncovered, the second was closed with a collagen membrane, and the third was closed with a bone cover. After 30 and 60 days, the sheep were taken out of the experiment in groups of three; samples were collected from the operated areas and examined using computed microtomography and histology. RESULTS: According to the histological study, the bone repair process developed normally regardless of the surgery technique. The process started with the appearance of granulation tissue and connective tissue cords; in the final stages, cellular differentiation, pronounced osteoblastic activity, and inter-beam formation were seen. The most active regeneration was observed in the areas where the bone defects were closed with a collagen membrane, and especially in the windows made with no perforation of the maxillary sinus membrane. The microtomographic and histological tests proved that perforation of the mucous membrane during the sinus lift operation impaired bone tissue regeneration. CONCLUSION: The obtained results suggest that the most promising way to close a bone defect in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus is the use of a collagen membrane; therefore, we recommend choosing this approach for sinus lift surgery. Privolzhsky Research Medical University 2022 2022-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9376757/ /pubmed/35993000 http://dx.doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.1.05 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Biotechnologies
Trubushkina, E.M.
Boyko, E.M.
Stomatov, D.V.
Rzhepakovsky, I.V.
Piskov, S.I.
Yeldashev, D.S.-A.
Kutsenko, A.A.
Dolgalev, A.A.
The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title_full The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title_fullStr The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title_full_unstemmed The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title_short The Comparison of Methods for Bone Reconstruction in the Anterior Wall of the Maxillary Sinus (an Experimental Study)
title_sort comparison of methods for bone reconstruction in the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus (an experimental study)
topic Biotechnologies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35993000
http://dx.doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.1.05
work_keys_str_mv AT trubushkinaem thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT boykoem thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT stomatovdv thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT rzhepakovskyiv thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT piskovsi thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT yeldashevdsa thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT kutsenkoaa thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT dolgalevaa thecomparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT trubushkinaem comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT boykoem comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT stomatovdv comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT rzhepakovskyiv comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT piskovsi comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT yeldashevdsa comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT kutsenkoaa comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy
AT dolgalevaa comparisonofmethodsforbonereconstructionintheanteriorwallofthemaxillarysinusanexperimentalstudy