Periosteal distraction osteogenesis: Preliminary experimental evaluation in rabbits and dogs

Estrada, Jorge Ivan Cardona; Saulačić, Nikola; Vazquez, Lydia; Lombardi, Tommaso; Carmona, JU; Bernard, Jean Pierre

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2006.02.005

Cited by 36 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, the rod of the periosteal device was exposed in 10 of 16 (62.5 %) devices in the canine mandibular branch in the experiment of Estrada et al 7 This exposure rate is comparable to the results of Hasse et al 16) in a study of canine animals that underwent mandibular distraction osteogenesis. Henkel et al 17) reported wound infection and dehiscence associated with horizontal alveolar distractions in 9 of 15 pigs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Image Analysis of Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation using Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis

Inoue

Kuroiwa

Naitoh

et al. 2014

J. Hard Tissue Biology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel technique for inducing osteogenesis through original periosteal distraction in a canine mandible model. A periosteal distraction device was rigidly fixed to the mandible in three adult canines (i.e., six sides total). Two sides of 1 dog served as the control. In the experimental group, periosteal distraction was started 4 weeks after placement of the periosteal distraction device. The periosteum was distracted 0.5 mm per day until a height of 3 mm was reached. Distraction continued for 8 weeks. The animals were killed 14 weeks postoperatively. Radiographs were obtained after the devices were fitted and again after distracting the periosteum. Computed tomography (CT) was performed at weeks 1 and 8. Transverse images using OsiriX software were constructed based on the periosteal device to observe the amount of augmentation. Images over time were superimposed on the reference image using Photoshop software. It revealed the changes with time, which were measured. All 6 periosteal distraction devices remained rigidly fixed to the lateral surface of the mandibles. At completion of distraction, all operative sites had healed without evidence of infection or wound dehiscence. The amount of bone augmentation was calculated by comparing CT imagees. The experimental group showed increased width in the area of bone growth and in the bone itself on all six sides. Average increases were 0.7 mm in bone width and 3.31 mm in the area. Bone area and bone width were decreased slightly in the control group. There were significant differences between controls and the experimental group regarding bone width and bone area. We achieved bone augmentation using a custom-made periosteal distraction device. The amount of bone augmentation was calculated by comparing CT images.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Fracture and dislocation of bone fragments and wound dehiscence have been reported 3) . In contrast, bone augmentation by periosteal distraction has been successful in the mandible and skull of rabbits 6,7) and in the forehead of pigs 8) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image Analysis of Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation using Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis

Inoue

Kuroiwa

Naitoh

et al. 2014

J. Hard Tissue Biology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Histological observations corresponded to the previous findings for the given rate of PDO. 26,27 Uneven bone apposition on the old bone surface with blood vessels ingrowth was previously observed in rabbits using a distraction rate of 0.25 mm/24 h 26 and in rats using a rate of 0.1 mm/24 h. 28 Patch-wise bone formation was likely caused by the remnants of prominent coagulum, as they need to be resorbed before new bone is formed. 21 The absence of bone apposition observed in Group II might be caused by the higher rate of distraction performed that impaired the interaction between periosteum and the calvarial bone, important for the new bone apposition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Comparison of two protocols of periosteal distraction osteogenesis in a rabbit calvaria model

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The regenerative pathways during periosteal distraction osteogenesis may be influenced by the local environment composed by cells, growth factors, nutrition and mechanical load. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of two protocols of periosteal distraction on bone formation. Custom made distraction devices were surgically fixed onto the calvariae of 60 rabbits.After an initial healing period of 7 days, two groups of animals were submitted to distraction rates of 0.25 and 0.5 mm/24h for 10 days, respectively. Six animals per group were sacrificed 10 (middistraction), 17 (end-distraction), 24 (1-week consolidation), 31 (2-week consolidation) and 77 days (2-month consolidation) after surgery. Newly formed bone was assessed by means of micro-CT and histologically. Expression of transcripts encoding tissue-specific genes (BMP-2, RUNX2, ACP5, SPARC, collagen I α1, collagen II α1 and SOX9) was analyzed by quantitative PCR. Two patterns of bone formation were observed, originating from the old bone surface in Group I and from the periosteum in Group II. Bone volume and bone mineral density significantly increased up to the 2-month consolidation period within the groups (p <0.05). Significantly more bone was observed in Group II compared to Group I at the 2-month consolidation period (p <0.001). Expression of transcripts encoding osteogenic genes in bone depended on the time-point of observation (p <0.05).Low level of transcripts reveals an indirect role of periosteum in the osteogenic process. Two protocols of periosteal distraction in the present model resulted in moderate differences in terms of bone formation.

show abstract

“…Tieliewuhan et al 19) grafted collagen sponge incorporating carbonate apatite in rats so that the graft could remain in contact with the surface of the periosteum, and they observed new bone developed from the surface of the periosteum. In contrast, Estrada et al 20) compared the repair of bone on the bone and periosteum sides during bone expansion and reported that the bone repair associated with angiogenesis was observed on the bone side. The present results showed less bone formation on the periosteum side compared with island-like formations of new bone in the region adjacent to the cranial bone; however, it remains unclear whether the new bone was formed by bone conduction or from the implanted cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effectiveness of scaffolds with pre-seeded mesenchymal stem cells in bone regeneration —Assessment of osteogenic ability of scaffolds implanted under the periosteum of the cranial bone of rats—

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, there has been no study on the development of novel regimens based on the following tissue engineering principles: seeding and culturing mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on a scaffold before surgery or injecting cultured MSCs into a scaffold during surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the in vivo osteogenic ability of scaffold/MSCs implanted beneath the periosteum of the cranial bone of rats in three different sample groups: one in which MSCs were pre-seeded and cultured on a scaffold to produce the 3-D woven fabric scaffold/MSC composite using osteo-lineage induction medium, one in which cultured MSCs produced by osteolineage induction in cell cultivation flasks were injected into a scaffold during surgery and a control group, in which only the 3-D woven fabric scaffold was implanted. The results indicate that pre-seeding MSCs on a scaffold leads to a higher osteogenic ability than injecting cultured MSCs into a scaffold during surgery.

show abstract

Periosteal distraction osteogenesis: Preliminary experimental evaluation in rabbits and dogs

Cited by 36 publications

References 7 publications

Image Analysis of Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation using Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis

Image Analysis of Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation using Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis

Comparison of two protocols of periosteal distraction osteogenesis in a rabbit calvaria model

Effectiveness of scaffolds with pre-seeded mesenchymal stem cells in bone regeneration —Assessment of osteogenic ability of scaffolds implanted under the periosteum of the cranial bone of rats—

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About