| Literature DB >> 35009383 |
Anton Friedmann1, Stefan Fickl2,3, Kai R Fischer4, Milad Dalloul1,5, Werner Goetz6, Frederic Kauffmann7.
Abstract
Various biomaterial combinations have been studied focusing on their ability to stabilize blood clots and maintain space under soft tissue to support new bone formation. A popular combination is Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral (DBBM) placed with a native collagen membrane (NCM) tacked to native bone. In this study, we compared the outcome of this treatment option to those achieved with three different graft/membrane combinations with respect to total newly occupied area and the mineralized compound inside. After bi-lateral extraction of two mandibular premolars in five adult beagles L-shaped alveolar defects were created. A total of 20 defects healed for 6 weeks resulting in chronic type bone defects. At baseline, four options were randomly allocated to five defects each: a. DBBM + NCM with a four-pin fixation across the ridge; b. DBBM + RCLC (ribose cross-linked collagen membrane); c. DBBM + NPPM (native porcine pericardium membrane); and d. Ca-sulfate (CS) + RCLC membrane. Membranes in b/c/d were not fixed; complete tensionless wound closure was achieved by CAF. Termination after 3 months and sampling followed, and non-decalcified processing and toluidine blue staining were applied. Microscopic images obtained at standardized magnification were histomorphometrically assessed by ImageJ software (NIH). An ANOVA post hoc test was applied; histomorphometric data are presented in this paper as medians and interquartile ranges (IRs). All sites healed uneventfully, all sites were sampled and block separation followed before Technovit embedding. Two central sections per block for each group were included. Two of five specimen were lost due to processing error and were excluded from group b. New bone area was significantly greater for option b. compared to a. (p = 0.001), c. (p = 0.002), and d. (p = 0.046). Residual non-bone graft area was significantly less for option d. compared to a. (p = 0.026) or c. (p = 0.021). We conclude that collagen membranes with a prolonged resorption/barrier profile combined with bone substitutes featuring different degradation profiles sufficiently support new bone formation. Tacking strategy/membrane fixation appears redundant when using these biomaterials.Entities:
Keywords: animal study; bone substitutes; collagen membranes; degradation profile; guided bone regeneration (GBR); histomorphometry; lateral augmentation
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009383 PMCID: PMC8746186 DOI: 10.3390/ma15010238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Images of clinical documentation of defect configuration and GBR procedures. (a). Standardization of surgically created defects measured by the means of periodontal probe following tooth removal at the first surgery. (b). The positioning of the membranes for option a. and option b. after the cortical perforations in the buccal bone are completed at the second surgery. (c). The bone substitute (DBBM) in place. (d). The four-point membrane tacking by titanium tacks for option (a). (NCM). (e). The non-fixated membrane adaptation for option (b). (RCLC). (f). The complete tensionless soft tissue closure.
Figure 2The microscopic image for option a. (DBBM + NCM) in toluidine blue stain (×6.5). (a). The total ROI (green box) and highlighted non-bone graft area (red box). (b). The schematic position of the perpendicular and five highlighted levels for assessment of the horizontal ridge dimension.
Figure 3Box and whisker plot of the total ROI distribution across the four treatment options.
The mean values, Standard of Error (SE), and p-values for the ROI, the extension of non-bone graft area within the ROI, and the delta between the ROI and non-bone graft area. The statistically significant differences resulting from group-by-group comparison are indicated by *; ‡; ¥.
| Parameter | a. | b. | c. | d. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI total | 17.83 ± 1.26 * | 27.48 ± 4.13 * ‡ ¥ | 19.04 ± 1.20 ‡ | 19.14 ± 2.51 ¥ |
| * b. vs. a. 0.006 | ||||
| Residual non-bone graft | 3.08 ± 1.03 * | 0.72 ± 1.27 | 2.64 ± 0.83 ‡ | 0.03 ± 0.03 *,‡ |
| * a. vs. d. 0.026 | ||||
| ∆ ROI-none bone graft | 14.76 ± 3.94 * | 26.76 ± 10.62 *,‡,¥ | 15.89 ± 3.47 ‡ | 19.11 ± 2.52 ¥ |
| * b. vs. a. 0.001 | ||||
Figure 4The microscopic images for options b., c., and d. in toluidine blue stain (×6.5). (a) Total ROI (green box) and absent non-bone graft area (red box) for option b. (DBBM + RCLC). (b) Total ROI (green box) and highlighted non-bone graft area (red box) for option c. (DBBM + NPPM). (c) Total ROI (green box) and absent non-bone graft area (absent red box) for option d. (CS + RCLC).
Figure 5Box and whisker plot of the change in horizontal thickness at the crestal level (level 0).
The medians and IRs for the horizontal thickness change at four determined levels (crestal, −1 mm, −3 mm, −5 mm; all differences non-significant, n.s.).
| Horizontal Level | a. | b. | c. | d. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | 1.405 | 2.10 | 1.40 | 1.44 |
| Level 1 | 2.90 | 2.38 | 2.86 | 3.06 |
| Level 2 | 2.95 | 2.94 | 3.26 | 3.26 |
| Level 3 | 3.23 | 3.56 | 3.05 | 3.56 |