Evaluation of Goose-beak Bone Particles for Dentoalveolar Reconstruction in Dogs

Jang, Soyoung; Choi, Seok Hwa

doi:10.21873/invivo.11814

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study by Jang and Choi, 131 eight alveolar extraction sockets from four dogs were arbitrarily assigned into two groups to ascertain a split‐mouth architecture with the following treatment: control group, sockets filled with commercially purchased synthetic HA; Test group, sockets filled with grainy pounds. The results showed that the natural ceramic powder derived from GBP is suitable for canine alveolar bone reconstruction 131 . Inomata et al 132 extracted all premolars in beagle dog mandibles bilaterally.…”

Section: Implantation Defect Models (Include Alveolar Ridge Expansion...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed that BM led to more successful bone regeneration during GBR, in particular, CM was used in combination as a barrier to promote the regeneration of canine alveolar ridge defects 130 . In a study by Jang and Choi, 131 eight alveolar extraction sockets from four dogs were arbitrarily assigned into two groups to ascertain a split‐mouth architecture with the following treatment: control group, sockets filled with commercially purchased synthetic HA; Test group, sockets filled with grainy pounds. The results showed that the natural ceramic powder derived from GBP is suitable for canine alveolar bone reconstruction 131 .…”

Section: Implantation Defect Models (Include Alveolar Ridge Expansion...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed that the natural ceramic powder derived from GBP is suitable for canine alveolar bone reconstruction. 131 Inomata et al 132 extracted all premolars in beagle dog mandibles bilaterally. After a 12-week healing period, two bony defects (5 mm long; 5 mm wide; 7 mm deep) were created on the mandibles, and the buccal bone plate was excised.…”

Section: Canine (Dog) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Oral hard tissue defect models for evaluating the regenerative efficacy of implant materials

Sun

Heng

Zhang

2023

MedComm – Biomaterials and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral hard tissue defects are common concomitant symptoms of oral diseases, which have poor prognosis and often exert detrimental effects on the physical and mental health of patients. Implant materials can accelerate the regeneration of oral hard tissue defects (such as periodontal defects, alveolar bone defects, maxilla bone defects, mandible bone defects, alveolar ridge expansion, and site preservation), but their regenerative efficacy and biocompatibility need to be preclinically validated in vivo with animal‐based oral hard tissue defect models. The choice of oral hard tissue defect model depends on the regenerative effect and intended application of the tested implant material. At the same time, factors that need to be considered include techniques for constructing the particular defect model, the scaffold/graft material used, the availability of animal model evaluation techniques and instrumentation, as well as costs and time constraints. In this article, we summarize the common oral hard tissue defect models in various animal species (such as periodontal model, jaw defect model, and implantation defect model) that can be used to evaluate the regenerative efficacy and biocompatibility of implant materials.

show abstract

Section: Implantation Defect Models (Include Alveolar Ridge Expansion...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implantation Defect Models (Include Alveolar Ridge Expansion...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Canine (Dog) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oral hard tissue defect models for evaluating the regenerative efficacy of implant materials

Sun

Heng

Zhang

2023

MedComm – Biomaterials and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, critical bone defects are more serious. For the reconstruction of such defects, autografts, allografts, or xenografts have been used (1). Although autografts are good for inducing osteoinduction and osteoconduction, such grafts are limited to filling small defects because they are limited by the amount of tissue that can be obtained.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteogenic Evaluation of Hydroxyapatite Scaffold Loaded With Dexamethasone in Femoral Drill Holes

Park

Jang²,

Choi

2020

In Vivo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: Many cases of bone damage are due to trauma and metabolic diseases. This study aimed to evaluate bone regeneration into a porous hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffold using dexamethasone (DM)-loaded polymeric microspheres. Materials and Methods: Four adult dogs were used to evaluate the in vivo performance of DM-loaded microspheres immobilized on the surfaces of porous HA scaffolds. Two 5-mm drill holes were created in both the left and right femurs of each dog. The experimental groups included a control group (drill holes filled with HA scaffold alone), a DM 20 group (holes filled with DM-loaded HA scaffold with 20 mg DM per scaffold), and a DM 100 group (hole filled with DM-loaded HA scaffold with 100 mg DM per scaffold). Resulting bone volume percentages and bone mineral densities were calculated by examing microcomputed tomographic (CT) images. Results: The DMloaded HA scaffold groups showed a gradual periosteal reaction two weeks after insertion of the HA scaffold into the femoral drill holes. Four weeks after HA scaffold insertion, the periosteal reaction in the femoral drill holes became denser. Eight weeks after insertion of DM-loaded HA scaffolds, clear images of the scaffold were observed in micro-CT images of the femoral drill hole. The DM 100 group had better bone healing tendencies (bone mineral density, bone mass, trabecular volume, bone surface, and trabecular thickness) than the DM 20 group. Conclusion: DM-loaded HA scaffolds are suitable platforms for distributing bioactive molecules during osteogenesis in femoral drill holes.

show abstract

Evaluation of Goose-beak Bone Particles for Dentoalveolar Reconstruction in Dogs

Cited by 2 publications

References 18 publications

Oral hard tissue defect models for evaluating the regenerative efficacy of implant materials

Oral hard tissue defect models for evaluating the regenerative efficacy of implant materials

Osteogenic Evaluation of Hydroxyapatite Scaffold Loaded With Dexamethasone in Femoral Drill Holes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About