Maxillary Bone Reconstruction with Autogenous Grafts vs. Synthetic Biomaterials: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Success and Implant Survival Rate

Authors

  • Luara Bela Rocha Gomes Faculdade Unirb Teresina
  • Élida Lúcia Ferreira Assunção
  • Patriciah Dal Moro
  • Bruno Gabriel Cunha Mantovani
  • Urias Silva Vasconcelos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2025v7n2p1409-1422

Keywords:

Enxertos Ósseos; Seio Maxilar; Regeneração Óssea; Implantes Dentários; Biomateriais.

Abstract

Maxillary bone reconstruction plays a fundamental role in the oral rehabilitation of patients with severe bone loss, making the safe and successful placement of dental implants possible. To achieve this, different materials have been used, each with its own advantages and challenges. Autogenous bone grafts, harvested from the patient’s own body, are widely recognized for their high integration capacity, while synthetic biomaterials emerge as promising alternatives, reducing the need for a second surgical procedure. This study aimed to review the literature and compare the effectiveness of these two approaches in maxillary bone reconstruction, analyzing clinical success rates and the long-term survival of implants. To achieve this, scientific articles from indexed databases were consulted, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that evaluated the clinical outcomes of each material. The results indicate that autogenous grafts remain the gold standard, as they possess properties that promote more effective bone regeneration. However, their use can present challenges, such as the need for a second surgical site for graft harvesting and the possibility of bone resorption. On the other hand, synthetic biomaterials, such as hydroxyapatite and calcium phosphate, offer a less invasive approach and demonstrate osteoconductive potential, becoming even more effective when combined with growth factors. Therefore, the choice of materials should take into account the individual conditions of each patient, bone availability, and clinical planning. Both methods yield positive results, but further studies are needed to refine techniques and enhance the predictability of maxillary bone reconstruction, ensuring greater success and long-term durability of dental implants.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

CHATELET, M.; AFOTA, F.; SAVOLDELLI, C. Review of bone graft and implant survival rate: a comparison between autogenous bone block versus guided bone regeneration. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.04.009.

STARCH-JENSEN, T. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term studies (five or more years) assessing maxillary sinus floor augmentation. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 47, n. 1, p. 103-116, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.001.

RAPONE, B. et al. Long-term outcomes of implants placed in maxillary sinus floor augmentation with porous fluorohydroxyapatite (Algipore® FRIOS®) in comparison with anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss®) and platelet rich plasma (PRP): A retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, v. 11, 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092491.

RICKERT, D. et al. Maxillary sinus lift with solely autogenous bone compared to a combination of autogenous bone and growth factors or (solely) bone substitutes. A systematic review. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 41, n. 2, p. 160-167, 2012. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.10.001.

DEL FABBRO, M. et al. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, v. 24, n. 6, p. 565-577, 2004. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2005.04.024.

JENSEN, T. et al. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 23, n. 3, p. 263-273, 2012. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02168.x.

JAMCOSKI, V. et al. 15-Year retrospective study on the success rate of maxillary sinus augmentation and implants: influence of bone substitute type, presurgical bone height, and membrane perforation during sinus lift. BioMed Research International, 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9144661.

GALINDO-MORENO, P. et al. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation comparing bovine versus porcine bone xenografts mixed with autogenous bone graft: a split‐mouth randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 33, p. 524-536, 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13912.

STARCH-JENSEN, T. et al. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with synthetic bone substitutes compared with other grafting materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implant Dentistry, v. 27, p. 363-374, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000768.

KELLER, E.; TOLMAN, D.; ECKERT, S. Maxillary antral-nasal inlay autogenous bone graft reconstruction of compromised maxilla: a 12-year retrospective study. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, v. 14, n. 5, p. 707-721, 1999.

Published

2025-02-13

How to Cite

Gomes, L. B. R., Assunção, Élida L. F., Moro, P. D., Mantovani, B. G. C., & Vasconcelos, U. S. (2025). Maxillary Bone Reconstruction with Autogenous Grafts vs. Synthetic Biomaterials: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Success and Implant Survival Rate. Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences, 7(2), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2025v7n2p1409-1422