Yago Raymond1,2, David Pastorino1, Ignacio Ginebreda3, Yassine Maazouz1, Mònica Ortiz2, Maria-Cristina Manzanares4, Maria-Pau Ginebra5,6,7. 1. Mimetis Biomaterials S.L., Carrer de Cartagena, 245, 3F, 08025, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Biomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), EEBE, Av. Eduard Maristany, 10-14, 08019, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Carrer de Josep Trueta, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Human Anatomy and Embryology Unit, Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Universitat de Barcelona, 08907 L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Mimetis Biomaterials S.L., Carrer de Cartagena, 245, 3F, 08025, Barcelona, Spain. maria.pau.ginebra@upc.edu. 6. Biomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), EEBE, Av. Eduard Maristany, 10-14, 08019, Barcelona, Spain. maria.pau.ginebra@upc.edu. 7. Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, C/ Baldiri Reixac 10-12, 08028, Barcelona, Spain. maria.pau.ginebra@upc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the performance of a xenograft (XG) and a biomimetic synthetic graft (SG) in three-wall alveolar defects in minipigs by means of 3D computerised tomography and histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight minipigs were used. A total of eight defects were created in the jaw of each animal, three of which were grafted with XGs, three with SGs, and two were left empty as a negative control. The allocation of the different grafts was randomised. Four animals were euthanised at 6 weeks and four at 12 weeks. The grafted volume was then measured by spiral computed tomography to assess volume preservation. Additionally, a histological analysis was performed in undecalcified samples by backscattered scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy after Masson's trichrome staining. RESULTS: A linear mixed-effects model was applied considering four fixed factors (bone graft type, regeneration time, anatomic position, and maxilla/mandible) and one random factor (animal). The SG exhibited significantly larger grafted volume (19%) than the XG. The anterior sites preserved better the grafted volume than the posterior ones. Finally, regeneration time had a positive effect on the grafted volume. Histological observations revealed excellent osseointegration and osteoconductive properties for both biomaterials. Some concavities found in the spheroidal morphologies of SGs were associated with osteoclastic resorption. CONCLUSIONS: Both biomaterials met the requirements for bone grafting, i.e. biocompatibility, osseointegration, and osteoconduction. Granule morphology was identified as an important factor to ensure a good volume preservation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whereas both biomaterials showed excellent osteoconduction, SGs resulted in better volume preservation.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the performance of a xenograft (XG) and a biomimetic synthetic graft (SG) in three-wall alveolar defects in minipigs by means of 3D computerised tomography and histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight minipigs were used. A total of eight defects were created in the jaw of each animal, three of which were grafted with XGs, three with SGs, and two were left empty as a negative control. The allocation of the different grafts was randomised. Four animals were euthanised at 6 weeks and four at 12 weeks. The grafted volume was then measured by spiral computed tomography to assess volume preservation. Additionally, a histological analysis was performed in undecalcified samples by backscattered scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy after Masson's trichrome staining. RESULTS: A linear mixed-effects model was applied considering four fixed factors (bone graft type, regeneration time, anatomic position, and maxilla/mandible) and one random factor (animal). The SG exhibited significantly larger grafted volume (19%) than the XG. The anterior sites preserved better the grafted volume than the posterior ones. Finally, regeneration time had a positive effect on the grafted volume. Histological observations revealed excellent osseointegration and osteoconductive properties for both biomaterials. Some concavities found in the spheroidal morphologies of SGs were associated with osteoclastic resorption. CONCLUSIONS: Both biomaterials met the requirements for bone grafting, i.e. biocompatibility, osseointegration, and osteoconduction. Granule morphology was identified as an important factor to ensure a good volume preservation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whereas both biomaterials showed excellent osteoconduction, SGs resulted in better volume preservation.
Authors: Robert Kirmeier; Michael Payer; Martin Wehrschuetz; Norbert Jakse; Susanne Platzer; Martin Lorenzoni Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Arndt F Schilling; Wolfgang Linhart; Sandra Filke; Matthias Gebauer; Thorsten Schinke; Johannes M Rueger; Michael Amling Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 12.479