Grafts with the synthetic biomaterials ACP and MBCP showed bone regeneration that was similar to FDBA in surgically created three-wall intrabony defects adjacent to implants. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that ACP and MBCP synthetic biomaterials are as effective as FDBA at osteoconduction.

F-mod and modSLA surfaces showed no significant differences in early bone responses. Furthermore, the implant design had no influence on the bone response. This in vivo experimental model will help improve the evaluation of surface modification factors by allowing an independent estimation of one variable (surface modification) against a constant (implant design).

PurposeSignificant interest has emerged in the design of cell scaffolds that incorporate peptide sequences that correspond to known signaling domains in extracellular matrix and bone morphogenetic protein. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bone regenerative effects of the synthetic peptide in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model.MethodsEight millimeter diameter standardized, circular, transosseus defects created on the cranium of forty rats were implanted with synthetic peptide, collagen, or both synthetic peptide and collagen. No material was was implanted the control group. The healing of each group was evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically after 2- and 8-week healing intervals.ResultsSurgical implantation of the synthetic peptide and collagen resulted in enhanced local bone formation at both 2 and 8 weeks compared to the control group. When the experimental groups were compared to each other, they showed a similar pattern of bone formation. The defect closure and new bone area were significantly different in synthetic peptide and collagen group at 8 weeks.ConclusionsConcerning the advantages of biomaterials, synthetic peptide can be an effective biomaterial for damaged periodontal regeneration.

Bone healing between an implant and marginal bone was compromised at sites with a deeper defect when the width of the bone defect was 1.5 mm.

Despite the anatomic and biomechanical limitation in the mandibular posterior area, mandibular posterior single implants showed a high CSR during the observation period. Mandibular posterior single implants can be an effective and reliable treatment modality that is not affected by the surface treatment, position, or length and diameter of the implant.