Peri‐implant reconstruction using autologous periosteum‐derived cells and guided bone regeneration

Ribeiro, Fernanda Vieira; Suaid, Fabricia Ferreira; Silvério, Karina Gonzáles; Rodrigues, T.; Carvalho, Marcelo Diniz; Nociti, Francisco Humberto; Sallum, Enílson Antônio; Casati, Márcio Zaffalon

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2010.01635.x

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, no immunological reactions related to the use of allogeneic or human cells were reported in these studies. Most studies reported on the use of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSC); three studies used periosteal cells (POC) (Mizuno et al, ; Ribeiro et al, , b), two studies used periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSC) (Kim et al, ; Park et al, ), two studies used adipose tissue‐derived MSC (Bressan et al, ; Xu et al, ) and one study used endothelial progenitor cells (Machtei et al, ). MSC were used in early (one to six) passages, with (seven studies) or without osteogenic pre‐induction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shanbhag

Pandis

Mustafa

et al. 2017

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regeneration and establishment of osseointegration within oral peri-implant bone defects remains a clinical challenge. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) is emerging as a promising alternative to autogenous and/or biomaterial-based bone grafting. The objective of this systematic review was to answer the focused question: in animal models, do cell-based BTE strategies enhance bone regeneration and/or implant osseointegration in experimental peri-implant defects, compared with grafting with autogenous bone or only biomaterial scaffolds? Electronic databases were searched for controlled animal studies reporting on peri-implant defects and implantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) or other cells seeded on biomaterial scaffolds, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes histomorphometric bone area fraction (BA) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Nineteen studies reporting on large animal models (dogs and sheep) were included. Experimental defects were created surgically (16 studies) or via ligature-induced peri-implantitis (LIPI, three studies). In general, studies presented with an unclear to high risk of bias. In most studies, MSC were used in combination with alloplastic mineral phase or polymer scaffolds; no study directly compared cell-loaded scaffolds vs. autogenous bone. In three studies, cells were also modified by ex vivo gene transfer of osteoinductive factors. The meta-analyses indicated statistically significant benefits in favour of: (a) cell-loaded vs. cell-free scaffolds [weighted mean differences (WMD) of 10.73-12.30% BA and 11.77-15.15% BIC] in canine surgical defect and LIPI models; and (b) gene-modified vs. unmodified cells (WMD of 29.44% BA and 16.50% BIC) in canine LIPI models. Overall, heterogeneity in the meta-analyses was high (I 70-88%); considerable variation was observed among studies regarding the nature of cells and scaffolds used. In summary, bone regeneration and osseointegration in peri-implant defects are enhanced by the addition of osteogenic cells to biomaterial scaffolds. Although the direction of treatment outcome is clearly in favour of BTE strategies, due to the limited magnitude of treatment effect observed, no conclusive statements regarding the clinical benefit of such procedures for oral indications can yet be made. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shanbhag

Pandis

Mustafa

et al. 2017

J Tissue Eng Regen Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bone marrow is an usual source of bone cells (14), but harvesting these cells are frequently related to pain and morbidity. Alternatively, periosteum has been reported as a reliable source of osteogenic cells (15,16) allowing bone reconstruction around dental implants (17).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair of critical-size defects with autogenous periosteum-derived cells combined with bovine anorganic apatite/collagen: an experimental study in rat calvaria

Paulo

Castro-Silva²,

Oliveira

et al. 2011

Braz. Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bone repair using autogenous periosteum-derived cells (PDC) and bovine anorganic apatite and collagen (hA-COl). PDC from Wistar rats (n=10) were seeded on hA-COl discs and subjected to osteoinduction during 6 days. Critical-size defects in rat calvarias were treated with blood clot (G1), autogenous bone (G2), hA-COl (G3) and hA-COl combined with PDC (G4) (n=40), and then analyzed 1 and 3 months after surgeries. radiographic analysis exhibited no significant temporal change. G1 and G2 had discrete new marginal bone, but the radiopacity of graft materials in G2, G3 and G4 impaired the detection of osteogenesis. At 3 months, histopathological analysis showed the presence of ossification islets in G1, which was more evident in G2, homogeneous new bone around hA-COl in G3 and heterogeneous new bone around hA-COl in G4 in addition to moderate presence of foreign body cells in G3 and G4. histomorphometric analysis showed no change in the volume density of xenograft (p>0.05) and bone volume density in G2 was twice greater than in G1 and G4 after 3 months (p<0.05), but similar to G3. The PDC did not increase bone formation in vivo, although the biomaterial alone showed biocompatibility and osteoconduction capacity.Key Words: critical size defects, periosteum-derived cells, xenograft, hydroxyapatite, collagen.to obtain the osteogenic cells. Also, PDC show greater proliferation, which decreases the time of cell culture, contamination risks and experiment costs. It could be a favorable alternative for dentists as a regenerative therapy for alveolar bone to treat periodontitis and dental implant dehicenses, due to the easy handling, expansion and re-implantation of cells (2).Cell culture is done upon scaffolds to simulate the 3D structure of bone tissue. Demineralized and acelullar bovine xenograft matrices are predominantly composed

show abstract

“…47,[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] PDCs have been used to construct TEP with and without the use of scaffolds. Rat femoral shaft defects were successfully healed using TEP constructed from PDCs seeded on a polyglycolic acid scaffold.…”

Section: Bridging the Cell-tissue Level: Tissue Engineered Periosteummentioning

confidence: 99%

Elucidating Multiscale Periosteal Mechanobiology: A Key to Unlocking the Smart Properties and Regenerative Capacity of the Periosteum?

Evans

Chang

Tate

2013

Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri‐implant reconstruction using autologous periosteum‐derived cells and guided bone regeneration

Abstract: Although successful outcomes have been promoted by using the combined approach, PCs in conjunction with membranes did not provide additional benefit during peri-implant bone regeneration, when compared with the therapeutic approaches used alone.

Cited by 15 publications

References 49 publications

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinicalin vivoresearch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Repair of critical-size defects with autogenous periosteum-derived cells combined with bovine anorganic apatite/collagen: an experimental study in rat calvaria

Elucidating Multiscale Periosteal Mechanobiology: A Key to Unlocking the Smart Properties and Regenerative Capacity of the Periosteum?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About