Liao Wang1,2, Maziar Aghvami2, John Brunski2, Jill Helms2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California, 94305.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteotomies have been performed for centuries yet there remains a remarkable lack of consensus on optimal methods for cutting bone. There is universal agreement, however, that preserving cell viability is critical. PURPOSE: To identify mechanobiological parameters influencing bone formation after osteotomy site preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A murine maxillary osteotomy model was used to evaluate healing. Computational modeling characterized stress and strain distributions in the osteotomy, as well as the magnitude and distribution of heat generated by drilling. The impact of osteocyte death and bone composition were assessed using molecular and cellular assays. RESULTS: The phases of osteotomy healing in mice align closely with results in large animals; in addition, molecular analyses extended our understanding of osteoprogenitor cell proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization. Computational analyses provided insights into temperature changes caused by drilling and the mechanobiological state in the healing osteotomies, while concomitant cellular assays correlate drill speed with osteocyte apoptosis and bone resorption. Even when drilling was controlled, trabeculated, spongy (Type III) bone healed faster than densely lamellar (Type I) bone because of the abundance of Wnt responsive osteoprogenitor cells in the former. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a mechanobiological framework for evaluating tools and technologies designed to improve osteotomy site preparation.
BACKGROUND: Osteotomies have been performed for centuries yet there remains a remarkable lack of consensus on optimal methods for cutting bone. There is universal agreement, however, that preserving cell viability is critical. PURPOSE: To identify mechanobiological parameters influencing bone formation after osteotomy site preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A murine maxillary osteotomy model was used to evaluate healing. Computational modeling characterized stress and strain distributions in the osteotomy, as well as the magnitude and distribution of heat generated by drilling. The impact of osteocyte death and bone composition were assessed using molecular and cellular assays. RESULTS: The phases of osteotomy healing in mice align closely with results in large animals; in addition, molecular analyses extended our understanding of osteoprogenitor cell proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization. Computational analyses provided insights into temperature changes caused by drilling and the mechanobiological state in the healing osteotomies, while concomitant cellular assays correlate drill speed with osteocyte apoptosis and bone resorption. Even when drilling was controlled, trabeculated, spongy (Type III) bone healed faster than densely lamellar (Type I) bone because of the abundance of Wnt responsive osteoprogenitor cells in the former. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a mechanobiological framework for evaluating tools and technologies designed to improve osteotomy site preparation.
Authors: Steven Minear; Philipp Leucht; Jie Jiang; Bo Liu; Arial Zeng; Christophe Fuerer; Roel Nusse; Jill A Helms Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Theodore Miclau; Chuanyong Lu; Zachary Thompson; Paul Choi; Christian Puttlitz; Ralph Marcucio; Jill A Helms Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Sylvain Mouraret; Daniel J Hunter; Claire Bardet; Antoine Popelut; John B Brunski; Catherine Chaussain; Philippe Bouchard; Jill A Helms Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2013-12-08 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: C-H Chen; X Pei; U S Tulu; M Aghvami; C-T Chen; D Gaudillière; M Arioka; M Maghazeh Moghim; O Bahat; M Kolinski; T R Crosby; A Felderhoff; J B Brunski; J A Helms Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Benjamin R Coyac; Qiang Sun; Brian Leahy; Giuseppe Salvi; Xue Yuan; John B Brunski; Jill A Helms Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Hilario Pellicer-Chover; Julio Rojo-Sanchís; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; José Viña-Almunia; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Maria Peñarrocha-Diago Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2020-09-01
Authors: Oded Bahat; Xing Yin; Stefan Holst; Ion Zabalegui; Eva Berroeta; Javier Pérez; Peter Wöhrle; Norbert Sörgel; John Brunski; Jill A Helms Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Chih-Hao Chen; Benjamin R Coyac; Masaki Arioka; Brian Leahy; U Serdar Tulu; Maziar Aghvami; Stefan Holst; Waldemar Hoffmann; Antony Quarry; Oded Bahat; Benjamin Salmon; John B Brunski; Jill A Helms Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.241