Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Bone marrow concentrate versus autograft for rebuilding upper jaw
By Moustafa A et al.·2026·View original on Europe PMC →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate and Xenograft Versus Autograft and Xenograft in the 3D Reconstruction of Atrophic Maxillary Ridges: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how well two different methods of bone grafting work for patients with severe bone loss in the upper jaw. Ten patients who had lost a lot of bone were treated using two approaches: one side of their mouth received a mix of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC, which is a type of bone material taken from the patient) and a xenograft (bone from another species), while the other side received a mix of autograft (bone taken from the patient) and xenograft. After six months, both sides showed improvement in bone growth, but the side with BMAC had a bit more horizontal bone gain and less bone loss over time. Overall, the researchers found that using BMAC with xenograft resulted in a higher percentage of mature bone, suggesting this method could be a reliable and easier option for rebuilding bone in the upper jaw.
Abstract
<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate bone quality and quantity after 3D augmentation of vertically and horizontally atrophied maxillary ridges and compare the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and xenograft versus autograft and xenograft, both using prebent titanium (Ti) mesh over a virtually augmented model.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Ten fully edentulous patients with severe maxillary vertical and horizontal bone loss were recruited. Virtual horizontal and vertical bone augmentation was performed for the deficient ridge to produce virtually augmented models for prebent Ti meshes preoperatively. Each patient was rehabilitated with BMAC and xenograft on one side of their mouth (test side) and with autograft and xenograft on the other (control side). For the test side, the mesh was loaded with a mix of xenograft and BMAC from the anterior iliac crest. For the control side, the mesh was loaded with a 1:1 ratio of xenograft to autograft mix. The meshes on both sides were fixed in place using miniscrews.<h4>Results</h4>CBCT scans were performed 6 months postoperatively for all patients. The test side showed a mean vertical bone gain of 3.47 ± 0.87 mm, which was comparable to that of the control side (4.10 ± 0.67 mm). The test side also showed a mean horizontal bone gain of 3.476 ± 0.59 mm, which was higher than that of the control side (2.918 ± 0.80 mm). While the mean resorption rate in the test side (106.2 ± 108.6 mm) was lower than the mean value in the control side (193.3 ± 107.9 mm), the differences in bone gain were not statistically significant. However, a statistically significant higher bone area percentage (47.9%) as well as a higher percentage of mature bone (67.7%) were detected in the test side compared to the control side (28.5% and 26.5%, respectively).<h4>Conclusions</h4>3D alveolar reconstruction using prebent Ti meshes loaded with xenograft mixed with BMAC could be a reliable and less complicated technique for vertically and horizontally atrophied maxillary ridges.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/40343919