Bone response to biomimetic implants delivering BMP-2 and VEGF: An immunohistochemical study

Ramazanoğlu, Mustafa; Lutz, Rainer; Rusche, Philipp; Trabzon, Levent; Köse, Gamze Torun; Prechtl, Christopher; Schlegel, Karl Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2013.01.037

Cited by 55 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean implant diameter reported in 29 studies was about 4 mm, two studies reported an inner implant diameter of 2.7 mm. 23,24 In 23 studies, implants were placed intraorally, in seven studies extraorally. In general, most implants were placed into the mandible: In the intraoral studies, implants in five studies were placed in the upper jaw and implants in 18 studies in the lower jaw.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ramazanoglu et al 23 X (*) X (**) X (*/**) 16. Ramazanoglu et al 24 X (*) X (**) X (*/**) 17. Schliephake et al 36 X (**) X (*) X (*/****) 18.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

“…Also, it is possible that GF activity is reduced due to the immobilization process. 9,10,15,16,19,[23][24][25]28,[35][36][37] The same considerations apply to the other growth factors used (Table III), perhaps even to a greater degree as their effects on bone growth can be expected to be generally lower than that of BMP. 38 There was only one exception to the negligible effect of GF on BIC that can be seen if only pig models are considered (see later).…”

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -3.9-11.2, p = 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI -0.8-15.0, p = 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference -3.3 pp, 95% CI -16.5-9.9, p = 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation. Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 23.9-11.2, p 5 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI 20.8-15.0, p 5 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference 23.3 pp, 95% CI 216.5-9.9, p 5 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ramazanoglu et al 23 X (*) X (**) X (*/**) 16. Ramazanoglu et al 24 X (*) X (**) X (*/**) 17. Schliephake et al 36 X (**) X (*) X (*/****) 18.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the use of parathyroidal hormone (PTH), growth hormone, steroids, calcitonin and vitamin D in systemic applications has also been shown to advance bone healing through stimulating osteogenesis, angiogenesis and osteoblast differentiation [27][28][29][30]. Various combinations of biomolecules have also been extensively evaluated in pre-clinical models with mostly positive results [27,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37].…”

Section: Biomoleculesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rational use of animal models in the evaluation of novel bone regenerative therapies

Perić¹,

Dumić-Čule²,

Grčević³

et al. 2015

Bone

130

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…51 If necessary, these key molecules could be injected into the repair site at the time of surgery to deliver short-term effects, or physically linked to DSM scaffolds to potentially prolong their myogenic activity. 52 The Fischer 344 rats used in this study had not reached skeletal maturity and continued to gain weight throughout the recovery period. As a result, the findings reported in this study might more accurately model the response of young adults to VML repair with DSM and MM implants.…”

Section: Decellularized Skeletal Muscle With Minced Muscle Autograftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Codelivery of Infusion Decellularized Skeletal Muscle with Minced Muscle Autografts Improved Recovery from Volumetric Muscle Loss Injury in a Rat Model

Kasukonis

Kim

Brown

et al. 2016

Tissue Engineering Part A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skeletal muscle is capable of robust self-repair following mild trauma, yet in cases of traumatic volumetric muscle loss (VML), where more than 20% of a muscle's mass is lost, this capacity is overwhelmed. Current autogenic whole muscle transfer techniques are imperfect, which has motivated the exploration of implantable scaffolding strategies. In this study, the use of an allogeneic decellularized skeletal muscle (DSM) scaffold with and without the addition of minced muscle (MM) autograft tissue was explored as a repair strategy using a lower-limb VML injury model (n = 8/sample group). We found that the repair of VML injuries using DSM + MM scaffolds significantly increased recovery of peak contractile force (81 -3% of normal contralateral muscle) compared to unrepaired VML controls (62 -4%). Similar significant improvements were measured for restoration of muscle mass (88 -3%) in response to DSM + MM repair compared to unrepaired VML controls (79 -3%). Histological findings revealed a marked decrease in collagen dense repair tissue formation both at and away from the implant site for DSM + MM repaired muscles. The addition of MM to DSM significantly increased MyoD expression, compared to isolated DSM treatment (21-fold increase) and unrepaired VML (37-fold) controls. These findings support the further exploration of both DSM and MM as promising strategies for the repair of VML injury.

show abstract

Bone response to biomimetic implants delivering BMP-2 and VEGF: An immunohistochemical study

Cited by 55 publications

References 57 publications

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

The rational use of animal models in the evaluation of novel bone regenerative therapies

Codelivery of Infusion Decellularized Skeletal Muscle with Minced Muscle Autografts Improved Recovery from Volumetric Muscle Loss Injury in a Rat Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About