Logo-japid
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2026;18(3): 132-138.
doi: 10.34172/japid.026.3985
  Abstract View: 73
  PDF Download: 46

Original Article

Effect of allogenic demineralized dentin matrix vs. xenograft in maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A randomized split-mouth study

Fatemeh Aghaziarati 1 ORCID logo, Mohammad-Taghi Chitsazi 2* ORCID logo, Leila Roshangar 3* ORCID logo, Amirreza Babaloo 4 ORCID logo, Elnaz Ziaei-Rad 1 ORCID logo

1 Department of Periodontics, Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Dental and Periodontal Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stem Cell Research Center, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4 Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
*Corresponding Authors: Mohammad-Taghi Chitsazi, Email: g4_4_8@hotmail.com; Leila Roshangar, Email: Roshangar@tbzmed.ac.ir

Abstract

Introduction: Maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) is commonly required in posterior maxillary atrophy. This study compared allogenic demineralized dentin matrix (ADDM) with a xenograft in MSFA.

Methods: In this randomized split-mouth trial, nine patients underwent bilateral MSFA with ADDM on one side and a xenograft on the other. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to assess bone height and density at baseline and at six months. Core biopsies were obtained for histologic analysis.

Results: Both groups showed significant increases in bone height and density (P<0.001). Mean bone density gain was 618.65±232.20 HU (ADDM) vs. 540.87±238.02 HU (xenograft, P=0.49). Mean bone height gain was 9.34±1.38 mm (ADDM) vs. 9.12±1.13 mm (xenograft, P=0.724). Histology showed viable new bone, with ADDM exhibiting higher collagen fiber density and vascularization.

Conclusion: ADDM showed clinical, radiographic, and histological outcomes comparable to xenograft in MSFA, suggesting its potential as a viable alternative.


First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 74

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 46

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Submitted: 04 Sep 2025
Revision: 18 May 2026
Accepted: 19 May 2026
ePublished: 31 May 2026
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)