Evaluation of regeneration after the application of 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral to alveolar bone defects in adult dogs

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the preclinical results of 2 types of commercially available deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) when applied to alveolar bone defects in dogs. Methods This study was conducted using 6 beagles. Alveolar defects in the mandible were formed and filled with 2 DBBMs produced by a similar procedure. Defects were randomly assigned to be filled using DBBM 1 or 2. All defects were covered with a collagen membrane and had a healing period of 12 weeks. After the dogs were sacrificed, histological, histomorphometric, and linear/volumetric analyses were performed. Results Both DBBM groups showed similar histological findings, demonstrating that bone remodeling had occurred and new bone had formed. The residual bone particles were surrounded by newly formed vital bone. In the histomorphometric analysis, the ratio of the area of vital bone and residual bone substitute in DBBM 2 (38.18% and 3.47%, respectively) was higher than that of DBBM 1 (33.74% and 3.41%, respectively), although the difference was not statistically significant. There were also no statistically significant differences between both groups in linear and volumetric analyses using micro-computed tomography scans and digitized images of dental casts. Conclusions In the present study, DBBM 1and 2, which were produced by similar processes, showed similar results in histological, histomorphometric, and volumetric analyses. Further studies are needed to identify more specific differences between the 2 DBBMs.

A comparative analysis of particulate bovine bone substitutes for oral regeneration: a narrative review

“…In a separate investigation, alveolar defects were induced in 6 beagles and filled with either InterOss® or A-Oss® (Osstem Implant, Seoul, Korea; both low-temperature treated) using GBR four weeks post-defect creation. Both BS resulted in new bone formation, with no significant disparities observed in histological, histomorphometric, and volumetric analyses [ 74 ].…”

Effectiveness of a collagen matrix seal and xenograft in alveolar ridge preservation: an experimental study in dogs

“…The mandibles of the dogs were scanned using a dental scanner (Medit, Seoul, Korea), and the obtained images were superimposed at 0, 4, and 20 weeks after surgery for 3D digital evaluation using software (Geomagic Design X and Control X, 3DSYSTEMS, SC, USA). Buccolingual alveolar ridge width was measured on cross-sectional images according to previous studies 52 – 54 . A reference line and curve were created, and three parallel lines (B, C, and D-line) were drawn to connect the buccal and lingual contours 1, 3, and 5 mm below the top of the alveolar crest at three time points.…”

Evaluation of alveolar ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two types of xenogeneic biomaterials: An in vivo experimental study

“…The cross‐sectional buccolingual alveolar ridge width was measured according to previous studies (Di Raimondo et al, 2020; Lee et al, 2022; Naenni et al, 2018; Sapata et al, 2020). A line was drawn on the extraction socket at the most central region of the buccolingual sides as a reference line on the cross‐sectionally superimposed images (Figure S1), and a reference curve was created.…”

“…Each distal root was preserved as a reference pristine site for each corresponding mesial root. The two extraction sockets in the unilateral alveolar ridge were rotationally allocated into the following groups (Figure 1) according to the previous study (Lee et al, 2022): CBBM group: ARP with CBBM (Bio‐Oss® Collagen; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) without a membrane or matrix PBBM/NCLM group: ARP with PBBM (Bio‐Oss®; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and NCLM (Bio‐Gide®; Geistlich Pharma AG) …”