Guided bone regeneration: Dynamic procedures versus static shielding in an animal model

Abstract

Due to its osteoinductive potential, the periosteum plays a crucial role in the process of neoosteogenesis. Therefore, periosteal elevation can lead to new bone formation in an artificially created space. In this study, we compared dynamic periosteal elevation with static shielding in an animal experiment. Different elevation/shielding heights of 5, 10, and 15 mm were tested with regard to various consolidation periods. Histological analysis, histomorphometry, and microradiography were used to measure the quantity and quality of the newly formed bone. No significant differences regarding bone quantity or quality were found between the two techniques. The cumulative results for the bone regeneration in the space created by distraction/elevation were about 66% in the dynamic and 67% in static procedure. The main advantages of both techniques are minimal invasion and low morbidity. In terms of clinical applications, periosteal elevation could be applied in cranio-maxillofacial surgery, in pre-implant augmentation and in reconstructive surgery.

Self‐activated mesh device using shape memory alloy for periosteal expansion osteogenesis

“…It seems that bone regeneration was induced by the gradual expanding force of the elasticity of the SMA device. Lethaus et al showed that the newly formed bone in the static periosteal shielding procedure was almost the same as that in the dynamic periosteal elevating procedure 15. This is different than the present results.…”

Comparison of two protocols of periosteal distraction osteogenesis in a rabbit calvaria model

“…No significant difference was seen between static and dynamic periosteal elevation with regard to the degree of mineralization, trabecular architecture and bone density on the calvaria of minipigs. 22,23 New bone would possibly be more calcified by decortication of the original bone. 17 This was, however, not performed as it might have overridden the effect of the periosteum stimulation alone.…”

Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis and Barrier Membrane Application: An Experimental Study in the Rat Calvaria

“…In contrast to the conventional DO, the distraction cavity is bordered by the original surface of the bone base and the periosteal (i.e., cambial) layer when a gradual distraction of the periosteum is applied. By application of perforated distraction plates or meshes in different models of periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO), new bone was formed to varying extents 9‐17 . Sencimen et al 18 found significant differences in the extent of newly formed bone between conventional DO and PDO disclosed by high content of interstitial fatty tissue.…”