Long-Term Histopathologic Evaluation of Bioactive Glass and Human-Derived Graft Materials in Macaca fascicularis Mandibular Ridge Reconstruction

Suzuki, Kevin R.; Misch, Carl E.; Arana, Gabriel; Rams, Thomas E.; Suzuki, Jon B.

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e3182263665

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bioactive glass is an osteoconductive biomaterial that has been used as a bone substitute for periodontal defects, alveolar filling, and in apical resections [31][32][33][34][35][36] . However, few prospective clinical studies have demonstrated the behaviour of this material in maxillary sinus augmentation with a sufficiently large number of patients 37,38 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of volumetric changes and trabecular microarchitecture in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation with bioactive glass and autogenous bone graft: a prospective and randomized assessment

Pereira

Menezes

Bonardi

et al. 2018

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the volumetric changes and the new bone microarchitecture in human maxillary sinuses augmented with bioactive glass (Biogran) alone, bioactive glass combined with autogenous bone graft (1:1), or autogenous bone graft alone. Twelve maxillary sinuses were grafted with bioactive glass (group 1), nine with bioactive glass mixed with autogenous bone graft 1:1 (group 2), and 12 with autogenous bone graft (group 3). Patients underwent cone beam computed tomography 15days after the procedure to determine the initial volume of the graft (T1) and again 6 months later (T2). Biopsies were obtained at the time of dental implant placement and were subjected to micro-computed tomography. The volumetric change was 44.2% in group 1, 37.9% in group 2, and 45.7% in group 3 (P>0.05). The trabecular microarchitecture results showed that the materials used in groups 1 and 2 were good bone substitutes. However, the addition of 50% bioactive glass to autogenous bone graft improved the microarchitecture of the graft. Furthermore, the results for volumetric changes indicated that bioactive glass, its association with autogenous bone graft in a 1:1 ratio, and autogenous bone graft alone have similar resorption.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of volumetric changes and trabecular microarchitecture in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation with bioactive glass and autogenous bone graft: a prospective and randomized assessment

Pereira

Menezes

Bonardi

et al. 2018

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each bone defect was closed and sutured by a skin‐matrix barrier membrane‐covered flap in front of the mucoperiosteal tissue. At 4 years posttreatment, alveolar bone at all sites was clinically normal, and mature cortical and cancellous bone formation was observed histologically in both bone graft materials 104 . Boller et al 105 created defects (15 mm × 8 mm × 5 mm) on both sides of the mandibles of nine baboons.…”

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

confidence: 99%

“…Suzuki et al 104 created bilateral bone defects in the edentulous mandibular alveolar ridge of nonhuman primates, which were grafted with two different types of bone graft materials. Each bone defect was closed and sutured by a skin‐matrix barrier membrane‐covered flap in front of the mucoperiosteal tissue.…”

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

confidence: 99%

“…At 4 years posttreatment, alveolar bone at all sites was clinically normal, and mature cortical and cancellous bone formation was observed histologically in both bone graft materials. 104 Boller et al 105 created defects (15 mm × 8 mm × 5 mm) on both sides of the mandibles of nine baboons. A poly(ester urethane) (PEUR)/ceramic CR scaffold with different concentrations of rhBMP-2 were implanted at the defect sites.…”

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

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

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

“…The use of bioactive glasses as alloplastic bone graft materials for alveolar ridge augmentation [68][69][70][71] and maxillary sinus lift [72][73][74] procedures has received increasing attention in implant dentistry. Besides Bioglass® other commercial types of bioactive glass have been used for bone repair such as PerioGlas® [70,75,76] and BioGran® [71][72][73]. Studies have reported presence of bioactive glass long-term postoperative (1-2 years) [72,73].…”

Section: Formulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Substitute Materials in Implant Dentistry

Saska¹,

Mendes²,

Gaspar³

et al. 2015

Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although bone autografts have been routinely used as "gold standard" for reconstruction/ replacement bone defects, because they have osteogenic, osteoinductive, osteoconductive properties, they have a high number of viable cells and are rich in growth factors. However, the use of autograft is limited by several factors, being one of them the insufficient amount of donor tissue. Therefore, bone substitute materials have been extensively studied in order to develop an ideal material for substitution of bone grafts, due to some disadvantages presented by autografts, allografts and xenografts, such as poor bone quality, an inadequate amount of bone and possible immunogenicity for allografts and xenografts, which limit the use of these grafts in specific surgical protocols. These disadvantages have led tissue engineering and biotechnology to develop new materials and promising methods for tissue repair, especially for bone tissue. Thus, bone substitutes, synthetic and/or biotechnologically processed have become potential materials for clinical applications in different areas of health. An ideal bone substitute (BS) material should provide a variety of shapes and sizes with suitable mechanical properties to be used in sites where there are impact loading; moreover, these materials should be biocompatible, osteoconductive, preferably being resorbable and replaced by new bone formation. In general, resorbable BS materials are preferred, since these materials are expected to preserve the increased bone volume during the reconstruction and simultaneously are gradually replaced by newly formed bone. Synthetic materials, denominated as alloplastics, may act as scaffolds for bone cells providing tissue growth inside the respective material.

show abstract

Long-Term Histopathologic Evaluation of Bioactive Glass and Human-Derived Graft Materials in Macaca fascicularis Mandibular Ridge Reconstruction

Abstract: Numerous particles of nonresorbed bioactive glass graft material, but not human demineralized bone matrix, were found in 4-year posttreatment bone core biopsies of regenerated bone in M. fascicularis mandibular alveolar ridge reconstructions.

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Comparative study of volumetric changes and trabecular microarchitecture in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation with bioactive glass and autogenous bone graft: a prospective and randomized assessment

Comparative study of volumetric changes and trabecular microarchitecture in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation with bioactive glass and autogenous bone graft: a prospective and randomized assessment

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

Bone Substitute Materials in Implant Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About