Reconstruction of Mandibular Continuity Defects With Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (rhBMP-2)

Herford, Alan S.; Boyne, Philip J.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2007.11.021

Cited by 245 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, recently Herford and Boyne 24 have reported that the doses 1.5mg/ml rh-BMP-2which was clinically used to induce bone in patients. When clinical dose is considered, higher dose may be needed to obtain significant bone formation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statin-induced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) 2 expression during bone regeneration: an immunohistochemical study

Alam

Ueki

Nakagawa

et al. 2009

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, an

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 expression following implantation of a statin and recombinant human BMP-2 (rhBMP-2), and to compare the bone regeneration capability of these substances in the rabbit nasal bone using immunohistological methods. Study design:Twelve adult male Japanese white rabbits (n = 12, age: 12-16 weeks, weight: 2.5-3.0 kg) were divided into three experimental groups and one control group.A total of 48 bone defects, four per rabbit, were created in the nasal bone while preserving the nasal membrane. In the experimental groups, one group was implanted with 10 mg statin dissolved in 0.2 ml water with an atelocollagen sponge (ACS), the second group was implanted with 5 μg rhBMP-2 with an ACS, and in the third group only the ACS was implanted. No material was implanted in the control group.Animals were killed at 1-, 2-, and 4-weeks postoperatively. The parts that had been operated on were removed and prepared for histological assessment. The expression of BMP-2 was evaluated using immunohistochemistry, and double-immunostaining for BMP-2 and Ki67 was observed by fluorescent microscopy.2

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statin-induced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) 2 expression during bone regeneration: an immunohistochemical study

Alam

Ueki

Nakagawa

et al. 2009

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, an

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…34 That no such stimulation of bone growth takes place when BMP-2 is used as a coating may be based on the much smaller amounts that can be immobilized on implant surfaces compared to the carrier-based application in bone defects as BMP amounts of coatings are in the mg range, those of carriers in the mg range. Also, it is possible that GF activity is reduced due to the immobilization process.…”

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -3.9-11.2, p = 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI -0.8-15.0, p = 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference -3.3 pp, 95% CI -16.5-9.9, p = 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation. Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 23.9-11.2, p 5 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI 20.8-15.0, p 5 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference 23.3 pp, 95% CI 216.5-9.9, p 5 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation.

show abstract

“…Herford et al reported on the application of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP)-2 alone with a collagen carrier and without concomitant bone materials in 14 patients with mandibular defects resulting from neoplastic diseases or secondary to osteomyelitis (related to bisphosphonates or irradiation) (Herford and Boyne, 2008). Successful osseous restoration of the edentulous area and subsequent prosthodontic treatment were achieved in all of the patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Reconstruction with Vascularized Osseous Free Flaps: a Review of the Literature

Kim

Nam

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This article reviews a few of the commonly used types of vascularized osseous free flaps in maxillofacial reconstruction, which still represents the gold standard of restoration. We also discuss the developing concepts in maxillofacial reconstruction. Recent findings: Most of the literature reconfirms the established patterns of reconstruction with the aid of vascularized osseous free flaps. This method of freetissue transfer is also feasible in cases of osteoradionecrosis or bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. These flaps are also suitable for prosthetic restoration using osseointegrated dental implants. Summary: Vascularized osseous free flaps still remain the standard of care. Improvements upon the free-tissue transfer method employing vascularized osseous free flaps, such as distraction osteogenesis, tissue engineering, and imaging techniques, currently require further development, but these technologies could lead to improved outcomes of maxillofacial reconstruction in the near future.

show abstract

Reconstruction of Mandibular Continuity Defects With Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (rhBMP-2)

Cited by 245 publications

References 11 publications

Statin-induced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) 2 expression during bone regeneration: an immunohistochemical study

Statin-induced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) 2 expression during bone regeneration: an immunohistochemical study

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Mandibular Reconstruction with Vascularized Osseous Free Flaps: a Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About