| Literature DB >> 30619619 |
José Miguel Campos1,2,3, Ana Catarina Sousa4, Pedro Olivério Pinto1,2,3, Jorge Ribeiro2,3, Miguel Lacueva França2,3, Ana Rita Caseiro2,3,4, Mariana Vieira Branquinho2,3, Sílvia Santos Pedrosa2,3, Carla Mendonça2,3, Ana Brandão5, José Domingos Santos4, Américo Afonso6, Luís Miguel Atayde2,3, Ana Lúcia Luís2,3, Ana Colette Maurício2,3.
Abstract
Autologous bone remains the gold standard grafting substrate for bone fusions used for small gaps and critical defects. However, significant morbidity is associated with the harvesting of autologous bone grafts and, for that reason, alternative bone graft substitutes have been developed. In the present case series, a glass-reinforced hydroxyapatite synthetic bone substitute, with osteoinductive and osteoconductive proprieties, was applied. This synthetic bone substitute comprises the incorporation of P2O5-CaO glass-based system within a hydroxyapatite matrix, moulded into spherical pellets with 250-500 μm of diameter. A total of 14 veterinary clinical cases of appendicular bone defects and maxillary / mandibular bone defects are described. In all clinical cases, the synthetic bone substitute was used to fill bone defects, enhancing bone regeneration and complementing the recommended surgical techniques. Results demonstrated that it is an appropriate synthetic bone graft available to be used in veterinary patients. It functioned as a space filler in association with standard orthopaedic and odontological procedures of stabilization, promoting a faster bone fusion without any local or systemic adverse reactions. This procedure improves the animals' quality of life, decreasing pain and post-operative recovery period, as well as increasing bone stability improving positive clinical outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: And odontology; Biomaterial; Bone regeneration; Bonelike®; Canine; Case series; Feline; Orthopaedics; Synthetic bone graft; Veterinary
Year: 2018 PMID: 30619619 PMCID: PMC6310926 DOI: 10.1186/s40824-018-0150-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomater Res ISSN: 1226-4601
Individual data of the animals included in the case series
| Case n° # | Breed | Sex – Age – Body weight | Problem | Bone defect grading | Surgical procedure (reduction system) | Consolidation time of the lesion (weeks) | Functional Recovery | Skeletal system | Gender |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Male - 1y - 5 kg | Non-union defect of radius and ulna after two previous surgical failure | Large | Corrective osteotomy of radius with osteosynthesis plate in radius and another plate in ulna | 12 | Good | Appendicular bone defects | Canine |
| 2 |
| Male - 3y – 30 kg | Traumatic tibia fracture with a non-union defect after one previous surgical failure | Large | Tibia fracture repair with osteosynthesis plate | 12 | Good | ||
| 3 |
| Female - 8y - 25 kg | Traumatic mandibular fracture with a delay healing after one interdental wiring failure | Small | Mandibular reconstruction with osteosynthesis plate | 8 | Excellent | Maxillary and mandibular bone defects | |
| 4 |
| Male - 10y - 15 kg | Traumatic rostral mandibular fracture with loss of canine tooth | Medium | Mandibular reconstruction with external skeletal fixation | 5 | Excellent | ||
| 5 |
| Male - 4y - 2 kg | Periodontic-endodontic disease | Small | Reconstruction of alveolar cleft after a maxillary tooth extraction | 4 | Excellent | ||
| 6 |
| Male - 14y - 9 kg | Periodontic-endodontic disease | Small | Unilateral reconstruction of alveolar cleft after exodontic procedure | 6 | Excellent | ||
| 7 |
| Male – 15y -7 kg | Periodontal disease (oronasal communication) | Medium | Reconstruction of alveolar cleft after total premolar and molar tooth removal | 12 | Excellent | ||
| 8 |
| Male - 11y - 28 kg | Canine tooth fracture | Large | Extraction of one canine tooth | 12 | Excellent | ||
| 9 |
| Male - 3y - 28 kg | Canine tooth fracture | Small | Extraction of one canine tooth | 8 | Good | ||
| 10 |
| Male – 8y – 34 kg | Molar extraction | Small | Extraction of one molar tooth | 8 | Good | ||
| 11 |
| Male - 7y - 4 kg | Periodontic-endodontic disease | Medium | Reconstruction of alveolar cleft after total premolar and molar tooth removal | 12 | Excellent | Feline | |
| 12 |
| Female - 5y - 6 kg | Periodontitis (root reabsorption) | Small | Reconstruction of alveolar cleft after a maxillary tooth extraction | 4 | Excellent | ||
| 13 |
| Male - 16y - 4 kg | Traumatic mandibular fracture | Small | Fracture repair with external fixation | 12 | Good | ||
| 14 |
| Female - 4y - 3 kg | Traumatic mandibular fracture | Small | Fracture repair with external fixation | 12 | Good |
Bold data are canine patients. Italic data are feline patients
Fig. 1Preparation of Bonelike® mixture for intraoperative application, through mixture with autologous blood (a); mixed clot prepared for application (b)
Fig. 2Case #1 - Latero-lateral radiographic images of the front limb, presenting a critical radio-cubital bone defect. Preoperative non-union after two events of implant failure (a); Postoperative control 4 months after surgical correction using Bonelike®(b); Postoperative control 8 months after surgical correction using Bonelike®(c)
Fig. 3Case #2 – Latero-lateral and craniocaudal radiographic images of the hind limb, presenting a critical tibial bone defect. Preoperative non-union after internal fixation failure (a); Immediate postoperative control after surgical correction using Bonelike®(b); Postoperative control 4 months after surgical correction using Bonelike®(c)
Fig. 4Case #3 - Radiographic study of the mandibula presenting an oblique fracture and absence of adjacent teeth (a); Immediate postoperative control after surgical reduction by plate fixation and Bonelike® filling of the mandibular alveolar bone (b, c); Postoperative control 8 weeks after surgical correction using Bonelike®(d)
Fig. 5Case #4 - Radiographic study of the mandibula presenting a mandibular fracture and absence of adjacent teeth (a); Immediate postoperative control after external fixation and Bonelike® filling of the alveolar bone defect (b); Postoperative control 5 weeks after surgical correction using Bonelike® (c)
Fig. 6Case #5 - Radiographic study of the maxilla evidencing the alveolar defect resulting from exodontia of the 1st pre-molar tooth before (a) and after filling on the same with Bonelike® (b)
Fig. 7Case #6 – Visual examination of the oral cavity affected by severe periodontal disease (a); Postoperative control 6 weeks after exodontic procedure and filling of the left maxillary cavity using Bonelike® (right side of the image) (b); Visual examination of the oral cavity 6 weeks after exodontic procedure and filling of the left maxillary cavity using Bonelike®(c)
Fig. 8Case #7 - Visual examination of the oral cavity affected by severe periodontal disease (a); Surgical extraction of all teeth caudal to the 1st maxillary pre-molars, resulting in exposed maxillary alveolar cavities (b), that were filled with Bonelike®(c) and covered by a mucosal flap (d); Postoperative control 12 weeks after exodontic procedure and filling of the defect using Bonelike® (e: right maxilla, f: left maxilla)
Fig. 9Case #8 - Visual examination of the oral cavity and identification of the fractured canine tooth (a); Exposed maxillary alveolar cavity after tooth removal (b), that was filed with Bonelike®(c) and covered by a mucosal flap (d); Postoperative control 12 weeks after exodontic procedure and filling of the defect using Bonelike®(e)
Fig. 10Case #9 - Visual examination of the oral cavity and identification of the fractured maxillary canine tooth (a); Exposed maxillary alveolar cavity after tooth removal that was covered by a mucosal flap (b); Preoperative control (c); Postoperative control after exodontic procedure, depicting the incomplete filling of the defect using Bonelike® (d)
Fig. 11Case #10 - Visual examination of the oral cavity and the molar tooth absence (a); Postoperative control 8 weeks after surgical filling of the defect using Bonelike® (b)
Fig. 12Case #11 - Visual examination of the oral cavity evidencing periodontal disease and stomatitis-gingivitis complex (a); Exposed maxillary alveolar cavities after molar and premolar extraction (b), that were filed with Bonelike®(c) and covered by a mucosal flap (d); Preoperative radiographic control; f: Intraoperative radiographic control after tooth extraction (e); Postoperative control 6 weeks after surgical filling of the defect using Bonelike®(g); Visual examination of the oral cavity 6 weeks after surgery (h)
Fig. 13Case #12 -Radiographic study evidencing dental root resorption (blue arrow) (a); Small alveolar defect after premolar unilateral exodontia (b) that was filed with Bonelike® and covered by a mucosal flap (c); Postoperative control 4 weeks after surgical filling of the defect using Bonelike® (blue arrow) (d)