Histological and immunohistochemical comparison of two different allogeneic bone grafting materials for alveolar ridge reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial in humans

Abstract

BackgroundPreclinical studies have hypothesized a possible immunological reponse to allogeneic materials due to detection of remnants of potential immunogenic molecules. However, their impact on integration, bone remodeling and immunological reaction after the augmentation procedure is largely unknown and a direct correlation of analytical data and evaluation of human biopsies is missing.PurposeThe present study aimed to compare two commercially available allogeneic materials regarding their content of cellular remnants as well as the bone remodeling, and integration and potential immunologic reactions on a histological and immunohistochemical level, integrating also in vitro analytical evaluation of the specific batches that were used clinically.Materials and MethodsTwenty patients were randomly assigned to treatment with Maxgraft or Puros for lateral ridge augmentation in a two‐stage surgery. After a mean healing period of 5 months, implants were placed and biopsies were taken for histological, immunhistochemical, and histomorphometrical evaluation regarding bone remodeling and inflammation, protein concentrations in vitro and the presence of MHC molecules of the same batches used clinically.ResultsNo differences in clinical outcome, histological, immunohistochemical, and in vitro protein analysis between the two bone grafting materials were observed. Active bone remodeling, amount of newly formed bone, and residual grafting material was independent of the materials used, but varied between subjects. MHC1 residues were not detected in any sample.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, both tested materials yielded equivalent results in terms of clinical outcome, new bone formation, and lack of immunological potential on a histological and immunohistochemical level.

Radiological and histological evaluation of horizontal ridge augmentation using corticocancellous freeze‐dried bone allograft with and without autogenous bone: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…No evidence of acute or chronic inflammation was observed in any of the samples. Solakoglu et al also demonstrated no signs of inflammatory reactions with using allogenic bone materials 27 . In the present study, all biopsies were prepared form the buccal region of the augmented ridge; thus, the probability of native bone existence in prepared biopsies decreased.…”

Clinical and histological sequelae of surgical complications in horizontal guided bone regeneration: a systematic review and proposal for management

“…The follow-up period after ridge augmentation or implant placement was reported in all studies except two [16,35], and it ranged from 3.1 months to 10 years. Two studies excluded smokers [30,38], 14 studies reported periodontal status of subjects [16-18, 21-23, 25-30, 35, 36, 40-43], and excluded subjects with untreated periodontal disease, or with a full mouth plaque score and full mouth bleeding score of more than 25%.…”

Performance of Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate and Xenogenic Hydroxyapatite on Bone Regeneration in Rat Calvarial Defects: Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical and Ultrastructural Analysis

“…The analysis of this work used histomorphometry and immunohistochemistry, these methodologies are widely used to assess cell tissue components involved in the osseointegration and bone remodeling process. [13][14][15][16] The results of the present study showed that the synthetic nano-HA/ß-TCP mixture biomaterial used to fill calvarial bone defects in a rat model induced a better cell response than deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM). Nano-HA/ß-TCP mixture showed larger percentages of stained areas with Masson's trichrome, PAS, MMP-9, and TNF-α than DBBM biomaterial.…”