Histomorphometric and immunohistochemical assessment of RUNX2 and VEGF of Biogran™ and autogenous bone graft in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation: A prospective and randomized study.

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been conducted to assess new bone formation using Biogran, a bioactive glass, in maxillary sinus bone augmentation through a prospective and randomized evaluation. Moreover, there are no studies that evaluate cellular behavior by immunohistochemical assessment for osteoblastic and vascular activity during bone repair.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare new bone formation and cellular behavior with Biogran alone, a 1:1 combination of Biogran and autogenous bone graft, and autogenous bone graft alone in human maxillary sinuses.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Ten maxillary sinuses were grafted with Biogran (Group 1), 10 grafted with Biogran added to autogenous bone graft in a 1:1 ratio (Group 2), and 10 grafted with autogenous bone graft alone (Group 3). After 6 months of bone healing, samples were obtained concurrent to the dental implants' placement to be evaluated by histomorphometric and immunohistochemical assessment for RUNX2 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).

RESULTS

The amount of new bone formation in Group 1 was 42.0 ± 7.3% in the pristine bone region, 40.7 ± 14.0% in the intermediate region, and 45.6 ± 13.5% in apical region. In Group 2, for pristine bone, intermediate, and apical regions, new bone formation was 36.6 ± 12.9%, 33.2 ± 13.3%, and 45.8 ± 13.9%, respectively. Group 3 showed new bone formation of 37.3 ± 11.6%, 35.3 ± 14.7%, and 39.9 ± 15.8% in pristine bone, intermediate, and apical regions, respectively. The immunolabeling for RUNX2 showed low cellular activity in osteoblasts for all groups, and the VEGF assessment demonstrated moderate cellular activity in Groups 1 and 2; however, Group 3 presented with low activity in the pristine bone region, followed by moderate activity in the intermediate and apical region.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that Biogran and its combination with autogenous bone graft 1:1 are good bone substitutes due to their similarity to autogenous bone graft.