AbstractAimTo compare the effectiveness of two xenografts for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in terms of clinical, radiographical, histologic, and molecular outcomes.Materials and methodsA split‐mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of Granada. Ten consecutive patients in need of bilateral two‐staged maxillary sinus floor augmentation were included. Each patient received both biomaterials (porcine bone mineral and anorganic bovine bone), which were randomly assigned for bilateral sinus augmentation. The maxillary autogenous bone scraped from the sinus access window was mixed with each xenograft at a 20:80 ratio. After a healing period of 6 months, bone biopsies were collected with a trephine during the implant placement in the regenerated area. Histologic, histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular outcomes were analyzed. Clinical and radiographical data throughout the treatment phases were also evaluated.ResultsThe resulting anatomic features were similar between both groups. After six months of graft consolidation, the graft resorption rates were similar between both biomaterials. The histologic, histomorphometrical, and immunohistochemical results showed no statistical differences between groups.ConclusionAnorganic bovine bone and porcine bone mineral combined with maxillary autogenous cortical bone show similar biologic and radiologic features in terms of biomaterial resorption, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis when used for maxillary sinus floor augmentation.