Guided Bone Regeneration Using Cyanoacrylate-Combined Calcium Phosphate in a Dehiscence Defect: A Histologic Study in Dogs

TiO2scaffolds in peri‐implant dehiscence defects: an experimental pilot study

“…Autologous bone blocks were considered a more relevant and challenging control. A number of experimental studies have been performed with a similar design as this study (Cho et al 1998;H€ ammerle et al 1998;Lee et al 2012;Li et al 2014). Although these studies represent different animal models, all studies indicated that the implant dehiscence defects, which all were similar or of a smaller size than this study, did not completely heal spontaneously and that the healing was improved by guided bone regeneration procedures.…”

Effects of chrondro-osseous regenerative compound associated with local treatments in the regeneration of bone defects around implants: an in vivo study

“…There is lack of consensus in the literature regarding the benefits of using membrane alone to promote further bone healing in dehisces [31][32][33][34]. There are three major reasons for that: (a) membrane collapse leading to compression of clot against the implant surface [32]; (b) decompensation between the bone formation and collagen membrane resorption rates allowing connective tissue invasion to the defects [4]; and (c) membrane displacement or exposure during the healing phase [31].…”

“…There are three major reasons for that: (a) membrane collapse leading to compression of clot against the implant surface [32]; (b) decompensation between the bone formation and collagen membrane resorption rates allowing connective tissue invasion to the defects [4]; and (c) membrane displacement or exposure during the healing phase [31]. The latter is related to sites with poorer bone regeneration [34,32].…”

“…Although the bone composition of canines is very comparable to humans, the macrostructure and microstructure and bone remodeling characteristics are moderately similar only [39]. However, there are several publications attesting the usefulness of the dog as a model for bone and implant research [4,32,40,39,41]. Despite of this, the use of dogs in research is likely to diminish with the development of alternative models, assays, and technologies.…”

“…Moreover, there are differences in the cortical and trabecular morphological characteristics between canine femur as compared to human maxillary and mandibular, and the surgical site used does not offer clinical challenges such as soft tissue and flap handling. Moreover, the implants remain covered by muscle layers and skin at all times, which avoids exposure of the materials to the environment as it was observed for implants installed in the edentulous ridges of dogs [32]. Thus, the results obtained cannot be directly translated to the clinical setting but rather used to evaluate the effects and predict possible outcomes of materials used for cortical bone regeneration.…”