Implantation of an Injectable Bone Substitute Material Enables Integration Following the Principles of Guided Bone Regeneration.
Injectable bone substitute (IBS)
biphasic bone substitute (BBSM)
bone regeneration
guided bone regeneration (GBR)
integration
multinucleated giant cells
vascularization
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
01
11
2019
revised:
18
11
2019
accepted:
25
11
2019
entrez:
1
3
2020
pubmed:
1
3
2020
medline:
2
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study investigates the in vivo tissue reaction and the integration behavior of an injectable bone substitute material (IBS) composed of a water-based gel combined with nano hydroxyapatite particles and biphasic calcium phosphate granules. The results of the IBS were compared to biphasic bone substitute granules (BBSM) of the same chemical composition. The subcutaneous implantation model in 40 female 5-week-old CD-1 mice up to 60 days after implantation was used for conduction of the in vivo experiments. Moreover, established histological, histopathological and histomorphometrical methods were applied. The results showed that the IBS was gradually invaded by cells and complex tissue elements. Thus, the implant bed could be distinguished in two areas, i.e. an outer and inner region. While the outer region started to interact with the peri-implant tissue by evoking multinucleated giant cells and at earlier time points by undergoing a continuous high vascularization, the inner part was free of peri-implant cells for at least 30 days, starting to undergo a similar tissue reaction at a later time point. The bone substitute granules allowed for a fast tissue influx between the interspaces of the granules starting at day 10. While the vessel density did not differ in both groups up to the end of the study, the amount of vascularization was significantly higher over the entire observation period in the BBSM group. Moreover, the amount of biomaterial-associated multinucleated giant cells (BMGCs) was significantly higher in the IBS group in the period of between 15 to 30 days after implantation, while comparable BMGC numbers were found in both groups towards the end of the study. IBS can build a barrier-like structure that is able to control the soft tissue influx into the central regions of the implantation bed, which could not be observed in other bone substitute granules of the same chemical composition. This directed integration behavior is assumed to be in accordance with the concept of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). Furthermore, BMGCs can significantly influence the process of angiogenesis within an implant bed of a biomaterial but not the maturity of blood vessels.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
The present study investigates the in vivo tissue reaction and the integration behavior of an injectable bone substitute material (IBS) composed of a water-based gel combined with nano hydroxyapatite particles and biphasic calcium phosphate granules. The results of the IBS were compared to biphasic bone substitute granules (BBSM) of the same chemical composition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The subcutaneous implantation model in 40 female 5-week-old CD-1 mice up to 60 days after implantation was used for conduction of the in vivo experiments. Moreover, established histological, histopathological and histomorphometrical methods were applied.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results showed that the IBS was gradually invaded by cells and complex tissue elements. Thus, the implant bed could be distinguished in two areas, i.e. an outer and inner region. While the outer region started to interact with the peri-implant tissue by evoking multinucleated giant cells and at earlier time points by undergoing a continuous high vascularization, the inner part was free of peri-implant cells for at least 30 days, starting to undergo a similar tissue reaction at a later time point. The bone substitute granules allowed for a fast tissue influx between the interspaces of the granules starting at day 10. While the vessel density did not differ in both groups up to the end of the study, the amount of vascularization was significantly higher over the entire observation period in the BBSM group. Moreover, the amount of biomaterial-associated multinucleated giant cells (BMGCs) was significantly higher in the IBS group in the period of between 15 to 30 days after implantation, while comparable BMGC numbers were found in both groups towards the end of the study.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
IBS can build a barrier-like structure that is able to control the soft tissue influx into the central regions of the implantation bed, which could not be observed in other bone substitute granules of the same chemical composition. This directed integration behavior is assumed to be in accordance with the concept of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). Furthermore, BMGCs can significantly influence the process of angiogenesis within an implant bed of a biomaterial but not the maturity of blood vessels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32111754
pii: 34/2/557
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11808
pmc: PMC7157898
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Biomarkers
0
Bone Substitutes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
557-568Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2012;14(1):39-44
pubmed: 22742431
Head Face Med. 2009 Jun 13;5:13
pubmed: 19523239
Ann Biomed Eng. 2014 Feb;42(2):323-37
pubmed: 23820768
Bioact Mater. 2017 Jun 23;2(4):208-223
pubmed: 29744431
Biomatter. 2015;5:e1056943
pubmed: 26083163
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):706-18
pubmed: 22297272
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Apr 22;20(8):
pubmed: 31013636
Sci Transl Med. 2011 Oct 5;3(103):103ra98
pubmed: 21974936
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Mar 15;33(3):636–644
pubmed: 29543928
Periodontol 2000. 1998 Jun;17:151-75
pubmed: 10337322
Biomed Mater Eng. 2009;19(1):71-6
pubmed: 19458448
Biomed Mater. 2012 Feb;7(1):015005
pubmed: 22287541
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jun 27;2018:9430989
pubmed: 30050947
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Oct;20(10):1099-104
pubmed: 19681965
Int J Artif Organs. 2018 Nov;41(11):789-800
pubmed: 29707988
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016 Dec;104(12):2928-2935
pubmed: 27419378
J Oral Implantol. 2016 Jun;42(3):273-7
pubmed: 26824327
Bone. 1999 Aug;25(2 Suppl):67S-70S
pubmed: 10458279
Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(17):3569-82
pubmed: 15020131
J Oral Implantol. 2015 Oct;41(5):e212-22
pubmed: 25105868
Biomater Res. 2017 Jun 5;21:9
pubmed: 28593053
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec;4(2):150-7
pubmed: 25593863
J Biomater Appl. 2014 Feb;28(6):859-68
pubmed: 23669497
Biomaterials. 2014 May;35(15):4477-88
pubmed: 24589361
J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Jul 31;8:25
pubmed: 23899023
J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015 Mar;9(3):191-209
pubmed: 23135814
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003 Mar;14(3):201-9
pubmed: 15348465
J Oral Implantol. 2015 Dec;41(6):e257-66
pubmed: 25490579
Radiol Clin North Am. 2006 May;44(3):451-61
pubmed: 16644361
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Oct;28(10):e175-e183
pubmed: 27683073
Acta Biomater. 2011 Nov;7(11):4018-28
pubmed: 21784183
Acta Biomater. 2010 Dec;6(12):4476-87
pubmed: 20624495
J Oral Implantol. 2016 Apr;42(2):127-37
pubmed: 26301338
Periodontol 2000. 1999 Feb;19:74-86
pubmed: 10321217
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Aug;19(8):796-803
pubmed: 18705811
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jun 12;33(5):1089–1096
pubmed: 29894551
Acta Biomater. 2008 Jan;4(1):139-48
pubmed: 17723325
J Periodontol. 2009 Nov;80(11):1774-82
pubmed: 19905932
Acta Biomater. 2012 Sep;8(9):3191-200
pubmed: 22705634
Biomed Mater. 2015 Sep 11;10(5):055007
pubmed: 26359820
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Apr;105(4):1105-1111
pubmed: 28093892