Periodontal Repair in Dogs: A Bioabsorbable Calcium Carbonate Coral Implant Enhances Space Provision for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Conjunction with Guided Tissue Regeneration

Abstract

Background: collapse or compression of a barrier device into a periodontal defect or onto the root surface compromises outcomes following guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Bone biomaterials have been suggested to support regeneration of alveolar bone and to improve space provision with GTR devices. The objective of this study was to evaluate space provision, alveolar bone, and cementum regeneration following use of a bioabsorbable, calcium carbonate biomaterial in conjunction with GTR. Methods: Routine, critical size, 5 to 6 mm, supraalveolar, periodontal defects were created in 5 young adult beagle dogs. Alternate jaw quadrants in consecutive animals received GTR and the coral biomaterial (cGTR) or GTR alone. The animals were euthanized 4 weeks postsurgery and tissue blocks processed for histometric analysis. Results: The coral implant particles were surrounded by newly‐formed bone or immersed in connective tissue and appeared to resorb and be replaced by bone. There was limited, if any, appreciable cementum regeneration. Space provision was enhanced in cGTR compared to GTR sites (6.1 ± 1.6 versus 2.4 ± 0.8 mm2; P <0.05). Bone regeneration (height) was significantly increased in cGTR compared to GTR sites averaging 1.9 ± 0.6 and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, respectively (P<0.05). Bone regeneration (area) was 2‐fold greater in cGTR sites compared to the GTR control (3.3 ± 1.8 versus 1.4 ± 0.5 mm2), however the difference was not statistically significant (P >0.05). Conclusions: The coral implant significantly enhanced space provision for GTR while alveolar bone formation appeared to be enhanced by its use. Increased healing intervals are needed to fully understand the biologic value of the coral implant a s an adjunct to GTR. J Periodontol2003;74:957‐964.

Experimental Animal Models in Periodontology: A Review

“…Two methodological approaches were described: treatment of surgical defects on the 3rd and 4th mandibular premolars [47-49], or a test based only on the 3rd premolar after avulsion of the 2nd and 4th premolars [50-53]. These approaches were used to evaluate regeneration procedures using BMP, GTR, enamel matrix proteins or grafting materials as bioactive glass [54-57].…”

Biodegradability of poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) in the presence of the J774.2 macrophage cell line

“…However only a few of them are biodegradable, such as phosphocalcic ceramics, poly (a-hydroxyesters) (e.g., poly (l-lactic acid), poly (glycolic acid)), allo or xenogenic bone grafts, coral, etc. [1][2][3][4]. Poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (pHEMA) is a suitable compatible biomaterial [5,6] and a good candidate for bone implantation [7][8][9][10].…”

Angiogenesis and bone regeneration of porous nano-hydroxyapatite/coralline blocks coated with rhVEGF165 in critical-size alveolar bone defects in vivo

“…17 However, predictable results have not been achieved in bone regeneration with particle grafts, due to their weakness in shape remodeling. 18 In comparison, HA/coral blocks might be advantageous for maintaining space and rebuilding bone volume. Unfortunately, bone formation with CHA blocks offers a lower capacity for osteogenesis than that provided by particles.…”