A randomized‐controlled clinical trial evaluating clinical and radiological outcomes after 3 and 5 years of dental implants placed in bone regenerated by means of GBR techniques with or without the addition of BMP‐2

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this randomized‐controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the long‐term outcome of implants placed in bone augmented with a xenogenic bone substitute material and a collagen membrane with or without the addition of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (rhBMP‐2). Material and methods: Eleven patients received a total of 34 implants placed into sites exhibiting lateral bone defects. In a split mouth design, the defects were randomly treated with the graft material and the collagen membrane either with (test) or without (control) rhBMP‐2. The patients were examined 3 and 5 years after insertion of the prosthetic restoration. Student's paired t‐test was performed to detect differences between the two groups. Results: The survival rate at 3 and 5 years was 100% for both groups. The peri‐implant soft tissues were stable and healthy without any difference between the two groups. The prosthetic reevaluation demonstrated four loose prosthetic screws during the first 3 years and seven ceramic chippings after 3 and 5 years. The mean distance between the first bone to implant contact to implant abutment junction at 3 years was 1.37 mm (test), 1.22 mm (control), and 1.38 mm (test), and 1.23 mm (control) at 5 years. The difference of <0.2 mm between test and control implants was not statistically significant. The mean change of the marginal bone level between baseline and 5 years ranged from −0.07 mm (mesial, test), −0.11 mm (distal, test), −0.03 mm (mesial, control), to +0.13 mm (distal, control). No statistically significant differences were observed between test and control sites. Conclusion: Implants placed in bone augmented with and without rhBMP‐2 revealed excellent clinical and radiological outcomes after 3 and 5 years.

A Comparative Study of Clinical Parameters in Submerged and Non submerged Implants

“…The quality and quantity of bone affects implant osseointegration, survival and aesthetics. Some of the factors that have been expressed as causes of bone loss are microbial factors, overheating, micro-movement of abutment or prosthesis, functional/ parafunctional forces and also the surgical protocols [19]. In this study the mean bone loss during 3 and 6 months following loading in one stage implants was more than in two stage implants (1.23 mm and 1.43 mm in one stage implants and 0.67 mm and 0.95 mm in two stage implants at 3 and 6 months; respectively).…”

Analysis of hydrolyzable polyethylene glycol hydrogels and deproteinized bone mineral as delivery systems for glycosylated and non-glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein-2

“…For our investigation we chose two well evaluated materials, mPEG hydrogels and DBBM. Both materials have previously been clinically tested for bone augmentation procedures in dentistry [7,9,[25][26][27][28][29][30]32].…”

“…An approach for a system composed of clinically evaluated materials that provides mechanical stability and allows sustained growth factor delivery is the combination of DBBM with hydrolysable polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogels [25][26][27][28][29][30]. In such a system, the release profile of the growth factor is dependent on the physical binding strength to the hydrogel, the degradation characteristics of the hydrogel and the interaction of the applied growth factor with the DBBM.…”

Identification of Novel EZH2 Targets Regulating Osteogenic Differentiation in Mesenchymal Stem Cells

“…Conversely, osteogenic differentiation can be inhibited by the activation of protein kinase A, which upregulates peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor gamma 2 (PPARg2) and in turn inhibits runtrelated transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) and osteopontin (OP), promoting adipogenesis [8]. RUNX2, a key lineage specific transcription factor, and signaling pathway molecules such as WNT and bone morphogenic protein (BMP) play a critical role in dictating MSC osteogenic differentiation [9][10][11][12][13].…”