| Literature DB >> 35161065 |
Francesco Inchingolo1, Denisa Hazballa1,2, Alessio Danilo Inchingolo1, Giuseppina Malcangi1, Grazia Marinelli1, Antonio Mancini1, Maria Elena Maggiore1, Ioana Roxana Bordea3, Antonio Scarano4, Marco Farronato5, Gianluca Martino Tartaglia5, Felice Lorusso4, Angelo Michele Inchingolo1, Gianna Dipalma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For decades, regenerative medicine and dentistry have been improved with new therapies and innovative clinical protocols. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate through a critical review the recent innovations in the field of bone regeneration with a focus on the healing potentials and clinical protocols of bone substitutes combined with engineered constructs, growth factors and photobiomodulation applications.Entities:
Keywords: APAG; CGF; PRF; PRP; autologous teeth bone substitute; bio-ceramics; bone substitutes; graft; low level laser therapy; platelet derivates growth factors; scaffold
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161065 PMCID: PMC8839672 DOI: 10.3390/ma15031120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Summary of the electronic databases Boolean search strategy (PubMed/Medline, PubMed/Central, Web of Science; Google scholar). No limitation about the publication years has been considered.
| Databases Search strategy | TITLE-ABS-KEY “((Bone grafts OR Bone substitutes); (Bone regeneration AND Biomaterials); (Bone tissue engineering AND Scaffold); (Bioceramics AND Tricalcium phosphate OR Hydroxyapatite); (Dentine graft OR Tooth graft); (Xenografts OR Bovine bone); (Laser therapy OR Low-level laser therapy OR LLLT); (Photobiomodulation Or biostimulation); (Osteoblasts proliferation AND differentiation); (Platelet-Rich Plasma OR PRP); (Platelet-Rich Fibrin OR PRF); (Growth Factor AND Concentrated Growth Factor OR CGF); (Mesenchimal Stem Cell AND Bone regeneration); (Bone morphogenic protein AND Bone regeneration); (Sinus flor elevation OR Sinus lift); (Alveolar Ridge Augmentation OR Socket Preservation); ((bone scaffolds OR bone graft OR bone substitutes) AND Hyaluronic acid) ((microbiota* OR microbiome *) AND boneregeneration))” |
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart of the included articles.
Figure 2Synthesis of the biomaterials for bone regeneration.
Summary of the laser protocols for biomaterials osseointegration enhancement.
| Type of LLLT | Type of Irradiation | Groups Stydy | Results | Conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nagata et al. [ | InGaAIP (λ 660 nm) | Power 35 mW/point Energy density 4.9 J/cm2/point | 1-LLLT alone | -Not suitable for proliferation of osteoblasts cell-Proliferation and differentiation was seen only for MSC present in BMA | The use of LLLT alone did not induce osteoblast proliferation but BMA/LLLT is a promising combined therapy in bone regeneration |
| Garcia et al. [ | InGaAIP (λ 660 nm) | Power 35 mW/point energy density 4.9 J/cm2/point | 1-control group with a blood clot | -Dexamethasone group show less bone formation with a reduction in osteoblasts | LLLT helped bone from the inhibitory effects of dexamethasone LLLT improve bone healing in critical defects |
| Saygyn et al. [ | Diode laser (λ 685 nm) | Power 25 mW/point energy density 2 J/cm2/point | 1-MSC single dose irradiated | -Double dose group stimulate the release of IGFBP3, IGF-1 and bFGF-LLLT stimulate osteoblasts proliferation | LLLT improved wound healing and bone regeneration |
| Cunha et al. [ | GaAIAs (λ 780 nm) | Power 100 mW/point energy density 6 J/cm2/point | 1-LLLT group | -LLLT stimulates new bone formation | Laser accelerated graft material particles and bone healing |
| de Olivera et al. [ | GaAlAs (λ 808 nm) | Power 100 mW/point energy density 4 J/cm2/session | 1-LLLT major group | -LLLT group shows osteogenic potential | LLLT stimulated bone formation in grafted area with osteoconductive materials |
| de Olivera et al. [ | GaAlAs (λ 808 nm) | Power 100 mW/point energy density 4 J/cm2/session | 1-deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) | -LLLT group osteogenic potential with the expression of BMP2 and OCN-increase of implant osteointegration | LLLT increased osteointegration in grafted area with osteoconductive materials |
| Gerbi et al. [ | GaAlAs diode laser (λ 830 nm) | Power 40 m/W/point energy density 4 J/cm2/point | 1-control group | -Osteogenic potential | LLLT combined with the use of biomaterials accelerated bone regeneration process |
| Renno et al. [ | GaAlAs diode laser (λ 830) | Power 30 m/W energy density 10 J/cm2 | 1-MC3T3 grown on biosilicate+LLLT | -LLLT GROUP 13% decrease in cell proliferation | LLLT group resulted in a reduction in cell growth |
| Grassi et al. [ | Laser diode (λ 920 nm) | Power 0.1 W energy density 3 J/cm2 | 1-Osteoblasts-like cells seeded on zirconia or titanium surface+LLLT | -Osteogenic potential | LLLT significantly increased cellular adhesion on implant surface |
| Pagin et al. [ | Visible red (λ 660 nm) | Laser: power 1 W/cm2 energy density 3 J and 5 J/cm2 | MC3T3 irradiated with red/infrared laser and LED | Red/infrared and LED | Red/infrared laser and LED had similar effects et early periods of time on stimulating pre-osteoblasts |
| Queiroga et al. [ | Red spectrum (λ 660 nm) infrared (λ 780 nm) | Power 40 mW | 1-LILT 660 nm | -LILT with 780 nm newly formed bone | LILT with 780 nm wavelength promote bone reparation |
| Mergoni et al. [ | Diode laser GaAs (λ 915 nm) | Power 0.12 and 1.25 W/cm2 5.15 and 45 J/cm2 | -Osteoblasts isolated from mandibular cortical LLLT treated | -No osteoblast cell proliferation | LLLT induced more bone nodules formation |
| Jawad et al. [ | Diode laser GaAlAs (λ 940 nm) | Power+energy | -LLLT groups | -Cell proliferation | LLLT improved bone formation by stimulating osteoblast cells |
Summary of the biomaterials and graft for sinus augmentation procedure.
| Sinus Augmentation Bone Substitutes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Minetti et al. 2019 [ | Demineralized and granulated tooth; | 23 patients; 40 implants; ridge height 5.22 ± 2.04 mm increased to 14.72 ± 2.83 mmbone healing. At six months 1 implant fail; 97.5% survival rate |
| Lui et al. 2020 [ | Deproteinized bovine bone delay implant placement (two-stage) MSFE; resorbable membrane | 20 patients; 36 implants placement; The loss of bone volume: test 13.29 ± 8.56% vs. control 12.87 ± 5.15%; ISQ test group vs. 71.85 ± 5.59 increased to 80.42 ± 3.38 ISQ for the control group was 72.46 ± 4.86 increased to 82.39 ± 1.57 |
| Younes et al. 2019 [ | Deproteinized bovine bone | 22 patients; 50 implants (2 weeks; 3 months; 2 years) Graft volumes amounted at 2 weeks 1418.26 mm3, at 3 months 1201.21 mm3 at 2 years 1130.13 mm3 graft volume stability of 79.7%. |
| Fouad et al. 2018 [ | Demineralized bovine bone with simultaneous implant placement and collagen membrane | 17 patients- 20 sinus lift; six months follow-up: |
| Mazzocco et al. 2014 [ | An organic bovine bone with a bioresorbable collagen membrane; simultaneous implant placement and delayed with nine months placements | 20 patients; 8–9 months later control |
| Younes et al. 2016 [ | Bovine-derived bone and collagen membrane | 57 patients; 53 sinus lift; 105 implants placement |
| Scarano et al. 2017 [ | Decellularized bovine compact bone, collagen membrane and implant placement after six months | 4 patients; six months control |
| Olaechea et al. 2019 [ | Biphasic HA/β-TCP-30/70% bony closed with a collagen membrane | 10 patients; six month control |
| Olaechea et al. 2016 [ | Β-TCP and simultaneous implant placement | 30 patients; 58 implants Bone volume decrease: |
| Oba et al. 2020 [ | Β-TCP bone graft with immediate implant placement | 23 patients; 30 implants placement; ≥3 years follow-up |
| Ohe et al. 2016 [ | Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), collagen membrane and implant placement in one stage | 15 patients; 16 sinus lift |
Summary of the biomaterials and graftfor ridge preservation procedure. [T: Test; C; Control].
| Ridge Preservation Bone Substitutes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Minetti et al. 2019 [ | Demineralized and granulated autologous tooth graft; collagen membrane | 98 patients; 119 socket sites; 106 implantations; 4-month implant placement; follow-up 9–45 months |
| Valdec et al. 2017 [ | Demineralized autologous tooth graft | 4 patients; 3–4 months implant placement |
| Minetti et al. 2020 [ | Demineralized deciduous teeth material | 1 patient; 2 alveolar socket grafted; 2 years follow-up2 implant placement after 4 months (3.1, and 4.1). Bone volume 47.22%. residual graft volume 18.68%, vital bone 28.55% |
| Del Canto-Diaz et al. 2018 [ | Autologous dental material | 6 patients; follow-up 8–16 weeks; |
| Al Qabbani et al. 2018 [ | Lyophilized bovine bone and resorbable membrane | 20 patients; followed up until 9 months |
| Fischer et al. 2018 [ | T1-demineralized bovine bone/soft tissue punch | 35 patients; 35 single-gap extraction sites; 6 months implant placement and control. |
| Pang et al. 2014 [ | Deproteinized bovine bone and collagen membrane, delay implant placement after 6 months | 30 patients; 6 months Bone height: Test 1.54 (0.25) mm Control 3.26 (0.29) mm; |
| Naenni et al. 2018 [ | T1-(PLGA): 60%/40% HA/ß-TCP and collagen membrane | 16 dogs experiment; 62 extraction site Pre-extraction to sacrifice: Median buccal volume change: T1: −1.76 mm T2: −1.62 mm T3: −2.42 mm Ridge width change: T1: −2.51 mm T2: −2.04 mm T3: −3.85 mm |
| Ikawa et al. 2016 [ | TG: β-TCP block (TCP, polyvinyl alcohol, distilled water) CG: no graft | 6 dogs-animal experiment; Bone loss measurements: |
| Mayer et al. 2016 [ | test group (T)—composite BCS/BCP, (Biphasic calcium sulphate with β Tri-Calcium Phosphate and Hydroxyapatite) | 36 patients; 40 extraction sockets; 29 follow-up |
| Baranes et al. 2019 [ | Biphasic calcium sulfate | Composite biomaterial for small osseous defects and extraction sockets |
Comparative summary of the main biomaterials’ properties.
| Ideal/Autologous Graft | TCP | Dentine Matrix | Bovine Bone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biocompactibility | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Mechanicalproperties | ++ | + - | ++ | ++ |
| Osteogenic | ++ | - - | + - | - - |
| Osteoconductivity | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Osteoinductivity | ++ | - - | + - | - - |
| Resorbtion | Regular | Fast resorbtion | Slow resorbtion | Slow resorbtion |
Comparative summary of the healing characteristics of the bone substitutes (AB: autogenous bone; AP: alloplastic graft; XG: xenografts; DM: dentin matrix; NBR: New Bone Regeneration; RG: Residual Grafts; CT: Connective Tissue).
| NBR | RG% | CT% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healing time < 6 months | AB > AP | AB > AP | AB > AP |
| AB > XG | AB < XG | AB > XG | |
| AB > DM | AB < DM | AB > DM | |
| Healing time ≥ 6 months | AB > AP | AB > AP | AB > AP |
| AB ≈ XG | AB < XG | AB > XG | |
| AB ≈ DM | AB < DM | AB ≈ DM |