Microtomographic reconstruction of mandibular defects treated with xenografts and collagen-based membranes: A pre-clinical minipig model.
Journal
Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal
ISSN: 1698-6946
Titre abrégé: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101231694
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2021
accepted:
16
07
2021
pubmed:
27
9
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
26
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The goal of this study was to evaluate hard tissue response following guided bone regeneration using commercially available bovine bone grafts and collagen membranes; bilayer collagen membrane and porcine pericardium-based membrane, by means of a non-destructive three-dimensional (3D) computerized volumetric analysis following microtomography reconstruction. Bone regenerative properties of various bovine bone graft materials were evaluated in the Göttingen minipig model. Two standardized intraosseous defects (15mm x 8mm x 8mm) were created bilaterally of the mandible of eighteen animals (n=72 defects). Groups were nested within the same subject and randomly distributed among the sites: (i) negative control (no graft and membrane), (ii) bovine bone graft/bilayer collagen membrane (BOB) (iii) Bio-Oss® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (BOJ) and (iv) cerabone® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (CJ). Samples were harvested at 4, 8, and 12-week time points (n=6 animal/time point). Segments were scanned using computerized microtomography (μCT) and three dimensionally reconstructed utilizing volumetric reconstruction software. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with a significance level of 5%. From a temporal perspective, tridimensional evaluation revealed gradual bone ingrowth with the presence of particulate bone grafts bridging the defect walls, and mandibular architecture preservation over time. Volumetric analysis demonstrated no significant difference between all groups at 4 weeks (p>0.127). At 8 and 12 weeks there was a higher percentage of new bone formation for control and CJ groups when compared to BOB and BOJ groups (p<0.039). The natural bovine bone graft group showed more potential for graft resorption over time relative to bovine bone graft, significantly different between 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.003). Volumetric analysis yielded a favorable mandible shape with respect to time through the beneficial balance between graft resorption/bone regenerative capacity for the natural bovine bone graft.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The goal of this study was to evaluate hard tissue response following guided bone regeneration using commercially available bovine bone grafts and collagen membranes; bilayer collagen membrane and porcine pericardium-based membrane, by means of a non-destructive three-dimensional (3D) computerized volumetric analysis following microtomography reconstruction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Bone regenerative properties of various bovine bone graft materials were evaluated in the Göttingen minipig model. Two standardized intraosseous defects (15mm x 8mm x 8mm) were created bilaterally of the mandible of eighteen animals (n=72 defects). Groups were nested within the same subject and randomly distributed among the sites: (i) negative control (no graft and membrane), (ii) bovine bone graft/bilayer collagen membrane (BOB) (iii) Bio-Oss® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (BOJ) and (iv) cerabone® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (CJ). Samples were harvested at 4, 8, and 12-week time points (n=6 animal/time point). Segments were scanned using computerized microtomography (μCT) and three dimensionally reconstructed utilizing volumetric reconstruction software. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From a temporal perspective, tridimensional evaluation revealed gradual bone ingrowth with the presence of particulate bone grafts bridging the defect walls, and mandibular architecture preservation over time. Volumetric analysis demonstrated no significant difference between all groups at 4 weeks (p>0.127). At 8 and 12 weeks there was a higher percentage of new bone formation for control and CJ groups when compared to BOB and BOJ groups (p<0.039). The natural bovine bone graft group showed more potential for graft resorption over time relative to bovine bone graft, significantly different between 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Volumetric analysis yielded a favorable mandible shape with respect to time through the beneficial balance between graft resorption/bone regenerative capacity for the natural bovine bone graft.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34564687
pii: 24811
doi: 10.4317/medoral.24811
pmc: PMC8601645
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Substitutes
0
Collagen
9007-34-5
Membranes, Artificial
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e825-e833Références
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Feb;17(1):150-62
pubmed: 23682753
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021 Oct;7(5):711-718
pubmed: 33949796
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Apr;20(4):340-50
pubmed: 19298288
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Feb;43(2):251-60
pubmed: 23948358
Periodontol 2000. 2014 Oct;66(1):13-40
pubmed: 25123759
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Jun;17(3):237-43
pubmed: 16672017
BMC Med. 2012 Jul 26;10:81
pubmed: 22834465
J Periodontol. 2004 Feb;75(2):229-35
pubmed: 15068110
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988 May;81(5):672-6
pubmed: 3362985
Vet Pathol. 2015 Sep;52(5):842-50
pubmed: 26163303
Odontology. 2008 Jul;96(1):1-11
pubmed: 18661198
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):597-603
pubmed: 26039281
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Feb;75(2):871-5
pubmed: 204938
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Nov-Dec;11(6):735-42
pubmed: 8990634
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Feb;92(2):409-19
pubmed: 19904820
J Periodontol. 1984 Nov;55(11):623-8
pubmed: 6594500
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 May-Jun;19(3):357-68
pubmed: 15214219
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2006 Jan;27(1):38-44
pubmed: 16454014
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 May;18(4):1245-1250
pubmed: 23934200
Eur J Oral Sci. 2017 Oct;125(5):315-337
pubmed: 28833567
Periodontol 2000. 2003;33:36-53
pubmed: 12950840
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Oct;114(4):437-43
pubmed: 22819460
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61
pubmed: 15635945
Comp Med. 2001 Apr;51(2):150-5
pubmed: 11922179
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Apr;28(2):123-35
pubmed: 18546808
Cell Biochem Funct. 1997 Sep;15(3):163-70
pubmed: 9377794
J Periodontol. 1993 Nov;64(11 Suppl):1116-28
pubmed: 8295100
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1466-1476
pubmed: 28349601
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2021 Dec;109(12):2237-2245
pubmed: 34080775
Odontology. 2017 Jan;105(1):1-12
pubmed: 27613193