Akira Hasuike1,2, Hisashi Ujiie3,4, Motoki Senoo5, Mitsuaki Furuhata5, Mamoru Kishida3,4, Hideyasu Akutagawa3,4, Shuichi Sato3,2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan hasuike.akira@nihon-u.ac.jp. 2. Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Periodontology, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Private Practice, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Division of Applied Oral Sciences, Nihon University Graduate School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: For alveolar ridge reconstruction prior to dental implant placement, a barrier membrane is placed to create space over the bone defect. Although periosteum possesses osteogenic capacity, direct contact between defects and periosteum has been avoided. The present study aimed to investigate whether pedicle periosteum could be used as a barrier membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve rabbits were used. A U-shaped incision was made in the frontal bone, and the skin-periosteum over the frontal bone was stripped. Two trephine-drilled holes with a diameter of 5 mm were prepared in the frontal bone. One hole was covered with pedicle periosteum (periosteum side), and the periosteum was secured to the contralateral side. The other defect was covered with an occlusive membrane (membrane side). RESULTS: The histological observation showed that both defects, which were covered either by the periosteum or by the membrane, were closed almost completely after 12 weeks of healing. No statistically significant difference was observed in the bone defect closure rates between the two sides at 4 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the pedicle periosteum possesses regenerative effects equivalent to those of occlusive membrane. The periosteum contributes to new bone formation by acting as a mechanical barrier and a source of osteogenic components. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: For alveolar ridge reconstruction prior to dental implant placement, a barrier membrane is placed to create space over the bone defect. Although periosteum possesses osteogenic capacity, direct contact between defects and periosteum has been avoided. The present study aimed to investigate whether pedicle periosteum could be used as a barrier membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve rabbits were used. A U-shaped incision was made in the frontal bone, and the skin-periosteum over the frontal bone was stripped. Two trephine-drilled holes with a diameter of 5 mm were prepared in the frontal bone. One hole was covered with pedicle periosteum (periosteum side), and the periosteum was secured to the contralateral side. The other defect was covered with an occlusive membrane (membrane side). RESULTS: The histological observation showed that both defects, which were covered either by the periosteum or by the membrane, were closed almost completely after 12 weeks of healing. No statistically significant difference was observed in the bone defect closure rates between the two sides at 4 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the pedicle periosteum possesses regenerative effects equivalent to those of occlusive membrane. The periosteum contributes to new bone formation by acting as a mechanical barrier and a source of osteogenic components. Copyright