Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of regeneration after the application of 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral to alveolar bone defects in adult dogs

  • Lee, Dajung (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Yoonsub (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Sungtae (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Tae (Department of Periodontics, One-Stop Specialty Center, Seoul National University, Dental Hospital) ;
  • Ahn, Jin-soo (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2021.11.30
  • Accepted : 2022.04.04
  • Published : 2022.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the preclinical results of 2 types of commercially available deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) when applied to alveolar bone defects in dogs. Methods: This study was conducted using 6 beagles. Alveolar defects in the mandible were formed and filled with 2 DBBMs produced by a similar procedure. Defects were randomly assigned to be filled using DBBM 1 or 2. All defects were covered with a collagen membrane and had a healing period of 12 weeks. After the dogs were sacrificed, histological, histomorphometric, and linear/volumetric analyses were performed. Results: Both DBBM groups showed similar histological findings, demonstrating that bone remodeling had occurred and new bone had formed. The residual bone particles were surrounded by newly formed vital bone. In the histomorphometric analysis, the ratio of the area of vital bone and residual bone substitute in DBBM 2 (38.18% and 3.47%, respectively) was higher than that of DBBM 1 (33.74% and 3.41%, respectively), although the difference was not statistically significant. There were also no statistically significant differences between both groups in linear and volumetric analyses using micro-computed tomography scans and digitized images of dental casts. Conclusions: In the present study, DBBM 1and 2, which were produced by similar processes, showed similar results in histological, histomorphometric, and volumetric analyses. Further studies are needed to identify more specific differences between the 2 DBBMs.

Keywords

References

  1. Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 5:1-21.
  2. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:212-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x
  3. Nevins ML, Camelo M, Rebaudi A, Lynch SE, Nevins M. Three-dimensional micro-computed tomographic evaluation of periodontal regeneration: a human report of intrabony defects treated with Bio-Oss collagen. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:365-73.
  4. Urban I, Caplanis N, Lozada JL. Simultaneous vertical guided bone regeneration and guided tissue regeneration in the posterior maxilla using recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor: a case report. J Oral Implantol 2009;35:251-6. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00004.1
  5. Kao ST, Scott DD. A review of bone substitutes. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2007;19:513-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2007.06.002
  6. Rosenberg E, Rose LF. Biologic and clinical considerations for autografts and allografts in periodontal regeneration therapy. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:467-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8532(22)00578-X
  7. Buser D, Hoffmann B, Bernard JP, Lussi A, Mettler D, Schenk RK. Evaluation of filling materials in membrane--protected bone defects. A comparative histomorphometric study in the mandible of miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:137-50. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090301.x
  8. Schwartz Z, Weesner T, van Dijk S, Cochran DL, Mellonig JT, Lohmann CH, et al. Ability of deproteinized cancellous bovine bone to induce new bone formation. J Periodontol 2000;71:1258-69. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.8.1258
  9. Esposito M, Felice P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;13:CD008397.
  10. Panagiotou D, Ozkan Karaca E, Dirikan Ipci S, Cakar G, Olgac V, Yilmaz S. Comparison of two different xenografts in bilateral sinus augmentation: radiographic and histologic findings. Quintessence Int 2015;46:611-9.
  11. Peetz M. Characterization of xenogenic bone material (Appendix). In: Boyne PJ, editor. Osseous reconstruction of the maxilla and the mandible: Surgical techniques using titanium mesh & bone mineral. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p.87-93.
  12. Rosen VB, Hobbs LW, Spector M. The ultrastructure of anorganic bovine bone and selected synthetic hyroxyapatites used as bone graft substitute materials. Biomaterials 2002;23:921-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00204-6
  13. Maiorana C, Poli PP, Deflorian M, Testori T, Mandelli F, Nagursky H, et al. Alveolar socket preservation with demineralised bovine bone mineral and a collagen matrix. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017;47:194-210. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2017.47.4.194
  14. Nevins ML, Camelo M, Schupbach P, Kim DM, Camelo JM, Nevins M. Human histologic evaluation of mineralized collagen bone substitute and recombinant platelet-derived growth factor-BB to create bone for implant placement in extraction socket defects at 4 and 6 months: a case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009;29:129-39.
  15. Stavropoulos A, Karring T. Guided tissue regeneration combined with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss) in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects: 6-year results from a randomizedcontrolled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:200-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01520.x
  16. Ferreira CE, Novaes AB Jr, Haraszthy VI, Bittencourt M, Martinelli CB, Luczyszyn SM. A clinical study of 406 sinus augmentations with 100% anorganic bovine bone. J Periodontol 2009;80:1920-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090263
  17. Vignoletti F, Abrahamsson I. Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39 Suppl 12:6-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01830.x
  18. Netto HD, Olate S, Kluppel L, do Carmo AM, Vasquez B, Albergaria-Barbosa J. Histometric analyses of cancellous and cortical interface in autogenous bone grafting. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013;6:1532-7.
  19. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009;41:1149-60. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  20. Shirakata Y, Imafuji T, Sena K, Shinohara Y, Nakamura T, Noguchi K. Periodontal tissue regeneration after low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation with or without intra-marrow perforation in two-wall intra-bony defects-A pilot study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2020;47:54-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13197
  21. Lee J, Yun J, Kim KH, Koo KT, Seol YJ, Lee YM. Periodontal regeneration using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 and a bilayer collagen matrix. J Craniofac Surg 2020;31:1602-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006517
  22. Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Pla R, Sanz-Martin I, Luengo F, Vignoletti F, et al. Alveolar crest contour changes after guided bone regeneration using different biomaterials: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:2351-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03092-8
  23. Naenni N, Bienz SP, Benic GI, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS. Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1185-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2210-3
  24. Borges T, Fernandes D, Almeida B, Pereira M, Martins D, Azevedo L, et al. Correlation between alveolar bone morphology and volumetric dimensional changes in immediate maxillary implant placement: a 1-year prospective cohort study. J Periodontol 2020;91:1167-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.19-0606
  25. Al Ruhaimi KA. Bone graft substitutes: a comparative qualitative histologic review of current osteoconductive grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:105-14.
  26. Kamadjaja DB, Sumarta NP, Rizqiawan A. Stability of tissue augmented with deproteinized bovine bone mineral particles associated with implant placement in anterior maxilla. Case Rep Dent 2019;2019:5431752.
  27. Kamadjaja DB, Abidin ZZ, Diana R, Kharis I, Mira Sumarta NP, Amir MS, et al. In vivo analyses of osteogenic activity and bone regeneration capacity of demineralized freeze-dried bovine bone xenograft: a potential candidate for alveolar bone fillers. Int J Dent 2021;2021:1724374.
  28. Piattelli M, Favero GA, Scarano A, Orsini G, Piattelli A. Bone reactions to anorganic bovine bone (BioOss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a histologic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:835-40.
  29. Schlegel AK, Donath K. BIO-OSS--a resorbable bone substitute? J Long Term Eff Med Implants 1998;8:201-9.
  30. Maiorana C, Beretta M, Salina S, Santoro F. Reduction of autogenous bone graft resorption by means of Bio-Oss coverage: a prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:19-25.
  31. Hatano N, Shimizu Y, Ooya K. A clinical long-term radiographic evaluation of graft height changes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with a 2:1 autogenous bone/xenograft mixture and simultaneous placement of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:339-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00996.x
  32. Wang W, Yeung KW. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: a review. Bioact Mater 2017;2:224-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007
  33. Yamashita T, Takahashi N, Udagawa N. New roles of osteoblasts involved in osteoclast differentiation. World J Orthop 2012;3:175-81. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v3.i11.175
  34. Gehrke SA, Mazon P, Del Fabbro M, Tumedei M, Aramburu Junior J, Perez-Diaz L, et al. Histological and histomorphometric analyses of two bovine bone blocks implanted in rabbit calvaria. Symmetry (Basel) 2019;11:641. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11050641
  35. Kim DM, Hong H, Lin JC, Nevins M. Evaluation of the bone-regenerating effects of two anorganic bovine bone grafts in a critical-sized alveolar ridge defect model. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017;37:e234-44. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3305
  36. Park JW. Evaluation of deproteinized bovine bone mineral as a bone graft substitute: a comparative analysis of basic characteristics of three commercially available bone substitutes. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2005;35:863-75. https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2005.35.4.863
  37. Jensen SS, Aaboe M, Pinholt EM, Hjorting-Hansen E, Melsen F, Ruyter IE. Tissue reaction and material characteristics of four bone substitutes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:55-66.
  38. Lee DS, Pai Y, Chang S. Physicochemical characterization of InterOss and Bio-Oss anorganic bovine bone grafting material for oral surgery-a comparative study. Mater Chem Phys 2014;146:99-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2014.03.004
  39. Kubler A, Neugebauer J, Oh JH, Scheer M, Zoller JE. Growth and proliferation of human osteoblasts on different bone graft substitutes: an in vitro study. Implant Dent 2004;13:171-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ID.0000127522.14067.11
  40. Sanz Martin I, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS. Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:406-11.