Reza Talebian1,2, Carina Kampleitner3,4,5, Benedikt Sagl6, Ulrike Kuchler7, Ahmad Reza Dehpour2,8,9, Reinhard Gruber1,5,10. 1. Department of Oral Biology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Experimental Medicine Research Center, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Karl Donath Laboratory for Hard Tissue and Biomaterial Research, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, AUVA Research Center, Vienna, Austria. 5. Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria. 6. Department of Prosthodontics, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 9. Experimental Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 10. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic liver disease increases the risk for periodontal disease and osteoporotic fractures, but its impacts on bone regeneration remain unknown. Herein we studied the impact of liver cirrhosis on peri-implant bone formation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 20 male Wistar rats were randomly divided into two groups; one with the common bile duct ligated (BDL) and the respective sham-treated control group (SHAM). After four weeks of disease induction, titanium mini-screws were inserted into the tibia. Successful induction of liver cirrhosis was confirmed by the presence of clinical symptoms. Another four weeks later, peri-implant bone volume per tissue volume (BV/TV) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were determined by histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS: Peri-implant bone formation was not significantly different between the SHAM and BDL groups. In the cortical compartment, the median percentage of peri-implant new bone was 10.1% (95% CI of mean 4.0-35.7) and 22.5% (13.8-30.6) in the SHAM and BDL groups, respectively (p=0.26). Consistently, the new bone in direct contact with the implant was 18.1% (0.4-37.8) and 23.3% (9.2-32.8) in SHAM and BDL groups, respectively (p=0.38). When measuring the medullary compartment, the new bone area was 7.1% (4.8-10.4) and 10.4% (7.2-13.5) in the SHAM and BDL groups, correspondingly (p=0.17). Medullary new bone in direct contact with the implant was 10.0% (1.2-50.4) and 20.6% (16.8-35.3) in SHAM and BDL groups, respectively, and thus comparable between the two groups (p=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Bile duct ligation has no significant impact on the early stages of peri-implant bone formation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES:Chronic liver disease increases the risk for periodontal disease and osteoporotic fractures, but its impacts on bone regeneration remain unknown. Herein we studied the impact of liver cirrhosis on peri-implant bone formation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 20 male Wistar rats were randomly divided into two groups; one with the common bile duct ligated (BDL) and the respective sham-treated control group (SHAM). After four weeks of disease induction, titanium mini-screws were inserted into the tibia. Successful induction of liver cirrhosis was confirmed by the presence of clinical symptoms. Another four weeks later, peri-implant bone volume per tissue volume (BV/TV) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were determined by histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS: Peri-implant bone formation was not significantly different between the SHAM and BDL groups. In the cortical compartment, the median percentage of peri-implant new bone was 10.1% (95% CI of mean 4.0-35.7) and 22.5% (13.8-30.6) in the SHAM and BDL groups, respectively (p=0.26). Consistently, the new bone in direct contact with the implant was 18.1% (0.4-37.8) and 23.3% (9.2-32.8) in SHAM and BDL groups, respectively (p=0.38). When measuring the medullary compartment, the new bone area was 7.1% (4.8-10.4) and 10.4% (7.2-13.5) in the SHAM and BDL groups, correspondingly (p=0.17). Medullary new bone in direct contact with the implant was 10.0% (1.2-50.4) and 20.6% (16.8-35.3) in SHAM and BDL groups, respectively, and thus comparable between the two groups (p=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Bile duct ligation has no significant impact on the early stages of peri-implant bone formation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
bile duct ligation; bone regeneration; implant; liver cirrhosis; osseointegration; rat; tibia