Effect of osteoblast cell culture on the bone implant contact

Hoşgör, F; Yılmaz, Nergiz; Senyurt, O; Gümüşova, S; Çam, Burcu; Ceylan, Gülsüm; Yardımcı, Cenk; Pınarlı, Ferda Alpaslan

doi:10.3109/00016357.2012.700066

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Full texts of the remaining 14 publications were obtained for review and possible inclusion in the systematic review and meta‐analysis. Out of these, four articles were further excluded ( κ = 1.00) (Hao et al ; Hoşgör et al ; Zhang et al ; Ribeiro et al ) for reasons indicated in Table . Manual search of reference lists of selected studies yielded no additional articles (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri‐implant defects: systematic review of preclinical studies

Misawa

Huynh‐Ba

Villar

et al. 2016

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review considers the evidence from animal studies evaluating the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in the treatment of intraoral peri‐implant defects. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases were searched for quantitative preclinical controlled animal model studies that evaluated the effect of MSC on bone healing at intraoral peri‐implant bone defects. The primary outcome was the amount of (re‐)osseointegration reported as bone‐to‐implant contact in the defect area. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement guidelines. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one study induced peri‐implant inflammation to produce peri‐implant bone defects. In all others, defects were surgically created at implant installation. Differences in defect morphology were identified among the studies. Both xenogenous and autogenous MSC were used to treat peri‐implant defects. These included bone marrow‐derived MSC, periodontal ligament‐derived MSC, umbilical cord MSC, bone marrow‐derived mononuclear cells, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Meta‐analysis was not possible because of heterogeneities in study designs. Nonetheless, in most studies, local MSC implantation was not associated with adverse effects and had a positive effect on bone healing around peri‐implant defects. Combination of MSC with membranes and bioactive factors appears to provide improved treatment outcomes. In large animal models, intraoral use of MSC may provide beneficial effects on bone healing within peri‐implant defects. The various degrees of success of MSC in peri‐implant bone healing are likely to be related to the use of cells from various populations, tissues, and donor species. However, human safety and efficacy must be demonstrated before its clinical use can be considered.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri‐implant defects: systematic review of preclinical studies

Misawa

Huynh‐Ba

Villar

et al. 2016

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shanbhag

Pandis

Mustafa

et al. 2017

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regeneration and establishment of osseointegration within oral peri-implant bone defects remains a clinical challenge. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) is emerging as a promising alternative to autogenous and/or biomaterial-based bone grafting. The objective of this systematic review was to answer the focused question: in animal models, do cell-based BTE strategies enhance bone regeneration and/or implant osseointegration in experimental peri-implant defects, compared with grafting with autogenous bone or only biomaterial scaffolds? Electronic databases were searched for controlled animal studies reporting on peri-implant defects and implantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) or other cells seeded on biomaterial scaffolds, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes histomorphometric bone area fraction (BA) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Nineteen studies reporting on large animal models (dogs and sheep) were included. Experimental defects were created surgically (16 studies) or via ligature-induced peri-implantitis (LIPI, three studies). In general, studies presented with an unclear to high risk of bias. In most studies, MSC were used in combination with alloplastic mineral phase or polymer scaffolds; no study directly compared cell-loaded scaffolds vs. autogenous bone. In three studies, cells were also modified by ex vivo gene transfer of osteoinductive factors. The meta-analyses indicated statistically significant benefits in favour of: (a) cell-loaded vs. cell-free scaffolds [weighted mean differences (WMD) of 10.73-12.30% BA and 11.77-15.15% BIC] in canine surgical defect and LIPI models; and (b) gene-modified vs. unmodified cells (WMD of 29.44% BA and 16.50% BIC) in canine LIPI models. Overall, heterogeneity in the meta-analyses was high (I 70-88%); considerable variation was observed among studies regarding the nature of cells and scaffolds used. In summary, bone regeneration and osseointegration in peri-implant defects are enhanced by the addition of osteogenic cells to biomaterial scaffolds. Although the direction of treatment outcome is clearly in favour of BTE strategies, due to the limited magnitude of treatment effect observed, no conclusive statements regarding the clinical benefit of such procedures for oral indications can yet be made. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Exploring the applications of platelet-rich plasma in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: evidence from goat and sheep experimental research

Sharun,

Banu,

El-Husseiny

et al. 2024

Connective Tissue Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of osteoblast cell culture on the bone implant contact

Abstract: Implant-bone connection was better in the OCC-PRP group compared with the PRP group and the empty defect group. The use of OCC-PRP combination was effective on healing. The BIC value was increased significantly by OCC.

Cited by 3 publications

References 46 publications

Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri‐implant defects: systematic review of preclinical studies

Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri‐implant defects: systematic review of preclinical studies

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Exploring the applications of platelet-rich plasma in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: evidence from goat and sheep experimental research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About