Literature DB >> 26039281

Bone formation in mono cortical mandibular critical size defects after augmentation with two synthetic nanostructured and one xenogenous hydroxyapatite bone substitute - in vivo animal study.

Michael Dau1,2, Peer W Kämmerer1,2, Kai-Olaf Henkel2, Thomas Gerber3, Bernhard Frerich1,2, Karsten K H Gundlach1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Healing characteristics as well as level of tissue integration and degradation of two different nanostructured hydroxyapatite bone substitute materials (BSM) in comparison with a deproteinized hydroxyapatite bovine BSM were evaluated in an in vivo animal experiment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the posterior mandible of 18 minipigs, bilateral mono cortical critical size bone defects were created. Randomized augmentation procedures with NanoBone(®) (NHA1), Ostim(®) (NHA2) or Bio-Oss(®) (DBBM) were conducted (each material n = 12). Samples were analyzed after five (each material n = 6) and 8 months (each material n = 6). Defect healing, formation of soft tissue and bone as well as the amount of remaining respective BSM were quantified both macro- and microscopically.
RESULTS: For NHA2, the residual bone defect after 5 weeks was significantly less compared to NHA1 or DBBM. There was no difference in residual BSM between NHA1 and DBBM, but the amount in NHA2 was significantly lower. NHA2 also showed the least amount of soft tissue and the highest amount of new bone after 5 weeks. Eight months after implantation, no significant differences in the amount of residual bone defects, in soft tissue or in bone formation were detected between the groups. Again, NHA2 showed significant less residual material than NHA1 and DBBM. DISCUSSION: We observed non-significant differences in the biological hard tissue response of NHA1 and DBBM. The water-soluble NHA2 initially induced an increased amount of new bone but was highly compressed which may have a negative effect in less stable augmentations of the jaw.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  animal experiment; bone regeneration; bone substitute; deproteinized hydroxyapatite bovine; mandibular augmentation; minipig; mono cortical critical size defect; nanostructured hydroxyapatite

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26039281     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  9 in total

Review 1.  Potential applications and human biosafety of nanomaterials used in nanomedicine.

Authors:  Hong Su; Yafei Wang; Yuanliang Gu; Linda Bowman; Jinshun Zhao; Min Ding
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.446

2.  A Mini-Pig Mandibular Defect Model for Evaluation of Craniomaxillofacial Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Bart A J A van Oirschot; Edwin J W Geven; Antonios G Mikos; Jeroen J J P van den Beucken; John A Jansen
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 3.273

3.  Comparison of nanoparticular hydroxyapatite pastes of different particle content and size in a novel scapula defect model.

Authors:  Veronika Hruschka; Stefan Tangl; Yulia Ryabenkova; Patrick Heimel; Dirk Barnewitz; Günter Möbus; Claudia Keibl; James Ferguson; Paulo Quadros; Cheryl Miller; Rebecca Goodchild; Wayne Austin; Heinz Redl; Thomas Nau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Hydrogel-embedded nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite granules (elastic blocks) based on a cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone as bone grafting substitute in a rat tibia model.

Authors:  Michael Dau; Cornelia Ganz; Franziska Zaage; Bernhard Frerich; Thomas Gerber
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2017-10-12

5.  Activation of Human Osteoblasts via Different Bovine Bone Substitute Materials With and Without Injectable Platelet Rich Fibrin in vitro.

Authors:  Solomiya Kyyak; Sebastian Blatt; Eik Schiegnitz; Diana Heimes; Henning Staedt; Daniel G E Thiem; Keyvan Sagheb; Bilal Al-Nawas; Peer W Kämmerer
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-02-17

6.  A collagen membrane influences bone turnover marker in vivo after bone augmentation with xenogenic bone.

Authors:  Henning Staedt; Michael Dau; Eik Schiegnitz; Daniel G E Thiem; Olga Tagadiuc; Victor Palarie; Peter Ottl; Bilal Al-Nawas; Peer W Kämmerer
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.151

7.  Microtomographic reconstruction of mandibular defects treated with xenografts and collagen-based membranes: A pre-clinical minipig model.

Authors:  J Gomez; E-T Bergamo; N Tovar; H-S Talib; B-E Pippenger; V Herdia; M Cox; P-G Coelho; L Witek
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2021-11-01

8.  The Influence of Hyaluronic Acid Biofunctionalization of a Bovine Bone Substitute on Osteoblast Activity In Vitro.

Authors:  Solomiya Kyyak; Andreas Pabst; Diana Heimes; Peer W Kämmerer
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.623

9.  Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes.

Authors:  Fabien Bornert; Valentin Herber; Rebecca Sandgren; Lukasz Witek; Paulo G Coelho; Benjamin E Pippenger; Shakeel Shahdad
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2021-05-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.