Sinus augmentation using rhBMP-2-loaded synthetic bone substitute with simultaneous implant placement in rabbits

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2)-loaded synthetic bone substitute on implants that were simultaneously placed with sinus augmentation in rabbits. Methods: In this study, a circular access window was prepared in the maxillary sinus of rabbits (n=5) for a bone graft around an implant (Ø 3×6 mm) that was simultaneously placed anterior to the window. Synthetic bone substitute loaded with rhBMP-2 was placed on one side of the sinus to form the experimental group, and saline-soaked synthetic bone substitute was placed on the other side of the sinus to form the control group. After 4 weeks, sections were obtained for analysis by micro-computed tomography and histology. Results: Volumetric analysis showed that the median amount of newly formed bone was significantly greater in the BMP group than in the control group (51.6 mm 3 and 46.6 mm 3 , respectively; P=0.019). In the histometric analysis, the osseointegration height was also significantly greater in the BMP group at the medial surface of the implant (5.2 mm and 4.3 mm, respectively; P=0.037). Conclusions: In conclusion, an implant simultaneously placed with sinus augmentation using rhBMP-2-loaded synthetic bone substitute can be successfully osseointegrated, even when only a limited bone height is available during the early stage of healing.

In vivo evaluation of 3D printed polycaprolactone composite scaffold and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 for vertical bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement on rabbit calvaria

“…14,15 These BIC (%) values were similar to those found in studies evaluating implant placement on rhBMP-2-induced bone. 22,23 In this study, the BIC (%) values of vertically augmented bone were not statistically different from those of native bone, based on the finding that there was no statistical BIC (%) difference between the microthreaded and macrothreaded regions. These observations indicate that successful osseointegration, which was sufficient to execute clinical functions, was obtained on bone that was vertically augmented with a PCL composite scaffold and rhBMP-2.…”

“…14,24,25 This may imply that the new bone, which was induced by rhBMP-2, did not significantly increase implant surface contact in vertical bone augmentation. 22,26 The protocol for loading rhBMP-2 to the implant surface was intended to preferentially induce osseointegration and new bone formation around the implant, whereas the method of loading rhBMP-2 to the PCL composite scaffolds was selected to investigate the amount of new bone formation which would occur within vertically augmented tissue. Neither the BIC (%) nor the PBD (%) in the histometric analysis showed a significant difference between the implant loading and scaffold loading protocols at either dosage level (5 and 30 μg).…”

Immediate nonfunctional loading of implants placed simultaneously using computer‐guided flapless maxillary crestal sinus augmentation with bone morphogenetic protein‐2/collagen matrix

“…Several prior studies have focused on the efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) in improving the new bone volume in animal sinus models; however, the effects of BMP‐2 addition to graft materials on bone formation and implant stability in the early stages of healing have rarely been studied, especially in patients with severely atrophic maxillae …”

The use of bioactive factors to enhance bone regeneration: A narrative review

“…Bone morphogenetic proteins have also been tested for sinus augmentation simultaneous to implant placement with heterogeneous results. In rabbits, BMP‐2 gene delivery using bone BMSCs and combined with DBBM resulted in significantly increased bone formation and BIC rates at 2 and 4 weeks compared to sites treated only with DBBM or DBBM and BMSCs (Jhin, Kim, Kim, Kim & Kim, ), while a rhBMP‐2‐loaded synthetic bone substitute showed no significant different BIC values compared to the non‐loaded control group (Joo, Cha, Lim, Choi & Jung, ).…”