| Literature DB >> 27145448 |
Doğan Kaner1, Han Zhao1,2, Wolfgang Arnold3, Hendrik Terheyden4, Anton Friedmann1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Soft tissue (ST) dehiscence with graft exposure is a frequent complication of vertical augmentation. Flap dehiscence is caused by failure to achieve tension-free primary wound closure and by the impairment of flap microcirculation due to surgical trauma. Soft tissue expansion (STE) increases ST quality and quantity prior to reconstructive surgery. We hypothesized that flap preconditioning using STE would reduce the incidence of ST complications after bone augmentation and that optimized ST healing would improve the outcome of bone regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: animal experiments; biomaterials; bone regeneration; guided tissue regeneration; surgical techniques; wound healing
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27145448 PMCID: PMC5484302 DOI: 10.1111/clr.12848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res ISSN: 0905-7161 Impact factor: 5.977
Figure 1(a) Control site prior to vertical bone augmentation. Note the vertical and horizontal loss of tissue. (b) STE test site prior to vertical bone augmentation with tissue expander in place (arrows), after 5 weeks of expansion.
Figure 2(a) BCP mixed with blood and applied on the residual bone ridge. (b) Completed scaffold after application of the PEG membrane gel onto the BCP granules.
Figure 3(a) Representative histological section of a test group specimen with highlighted total augmented area (Masson Goldner trichrome staining). (b) Representative histological section of a control group specimen with highlighted total augmented area (Masson Goldner trichrome staining).
Histomorphometric parameters for test and control groups (medians and interquartiles)
| TA (mm2) | NB (mm2) | CT (% of TA) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test | 9.49 |
|
|
| IQ | (4.62, 14.85) | (1.33, 5.35) | (15.43, 27.60) |
| Range | 2.28–18.64 | 0.21–8.63 | 2.8–11.7 |
| Control | 5.26 |
|
|
| IQ | (3.35, 6.97) | (0.43, 1.39) | (30.18, 61.48) |
| Range | 2.75–8.23 | 0–4.11 | 4.32–23.35 |
Significant difference in favour of the test group, P = 0.023.
Significant difference in favour of the test group, P = 0.009 (Mann–Whitney U‐test).
TA: total augmented area; NB: new bone; CT: connective tissue.
Figure 4(a) Significant correlation between the total area of interest (TA) and new bone (NB) in test sites (Spearman's correlation coefficient, r = 0.794, P = 0.006). (b) Lack of significant correlation between the total area of interest (TA) and new bone (NB) in control sites (Spearman's correlation coefficient, r = 0.614, P > 0.05). Two specimens showed no bone formation at all.
Figure 5a, b. Immunohistochemical stainings for OC with strong staining intensity scattered around BCP particles in test specimens (a). As well, positive staining is found in small zones around the BCP particles in control specimens (b). No statistically significant difference between groups (Table 2). c, d. Immunohistochemical stainings for TG‐II with very strong staining intensity around BCP particles in test specimens (c). Some positive staining is found in small zones around the BCP particles in control specimens (d). The difference between both groups is statistically significant (Table 3).
Immunohistochemical reactivity for osteocalcin (the number of specimens)
| Osteocalcin staining intensity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Weak | Strong | |
| Test | 5 | 1 | 4 |
| Control | 6 | 3 | 1 |
No significant difference between the groups (P = 0.236, chi‐squared test).
Immunohistochemical reactivity for transglutaminase II (the number of specimens)
| Transglutaminase II staining intensity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Weak | Strong | |
| Test | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Control | 6 | 4 | 0 |
Significant difference favouring the test group (P = 0.03, chi‐squared test).