Transplantation of New Autologous Biomaterials into Jaw Cleft

Kawata, Toshitsugu; Kohno, Satoru; Fujita, Tadashi; Sugiyama, Hiroki; Tokimasa, Chiyoko; Kaku, Masato; Tsutsui, K.; Tanne, Kazuo

doi:10.1177/147323000102900404

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They obtained an external callus comprising hyaline cartilage by tibial distraction osteogenesis with an external fixator and implanted it into the defects. They found that the external callus had bone formation and remodeling in its interior and promoted bone adhesion [157].…”

Section: Maxillary Drilling Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical models of jaw-bone defects for bone tissue engineering

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Jaw-bone defects caused by various diseases lead to aesthetic and functional complications, which can seriously affect the life quality of patients. Current treatments cannot fully meet the needs of reconstruction of jaw-bone defects. Thus, the research and application of bone tissue engineering are a “hot topic.” As seed cells for engineering of jaw-bone tissue, oral cavity-derived stem cells have been explored and used widely. Models of jaw-bone defect are excellent tools for the study of bone defect repair in vivo. Different types of bone defect repair require different stem cells and bone defect models. This review aimed to better understand the research status of oral and maxillofacial bone regeneration. Main text Data were gathered from PubMed searches and references from relevant studies using the search phrases “bone” AND (“PDLSC” OR “DPSC” OR “SCAP” OR “GMSC” OR “SHED” OR “DFSC” OR “ABMSC” OR “TGPC”); (“jaw” OR “alveolar”) AND “bone defect.” We screened studies that focus on “bone formation of oral cavity-derived stem cells” and “jaw bone defect models,” and reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical model of jaw-bone defect models. Conclusion The type of cell and animal model should be selected according to the specific research purpose and disease type. This review can provide a foundation for the selection of oral cavity-derived stem cells and defect models in tissue engineering of the jaw bone.

show abstract

Section: Maxillary Drilling Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical models of jaw-bone defects for bone tissue engineering

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main method of midfacial reconstruction has been the use of orthognathic surgery or osteotemy distraction osteogenesis (ODO) (Kawata et al, 2001; Zhao et al, 2011). Although good aesthetic results have been reported even without bone grafting, these methods can deprive patients of proper restoration of the maxillomandibular dentition due to extensive fibrosis, serious bleeding, and increased incidence of resistant postoperative infection (Ayoub et al, 2001; Elsalanty et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transsutural Distraction and Tissue Regeneration of the Midfacial Skeleton: Experimental Studies in Growing Dogs

Yao¹,

Wang

Wang³

et al. 2014

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different mechanical forces on the expansion of the palatine suture using transsutural distraction osteogenesis. Methods : A total of 48 dogs were used in this study. The experimental groups were treated with a custom-designed internal distractor. Bone regeneration was determined with x-rays and histology. The computed values underwent statistical analyses using analysis of variance. Results : The maxillary complex was most noticeably advanced with an applied mechanical force of 600 g (20.15 ± 1.36 mm), compared with forces of 400 g (19.88 ± 1.41 mm) and 800 g (2.24 ± 0.93 mm). Immunohistochemical staining showed that the expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and bone morphogenetic protein-4 fluctuated with different mechanical forces. These changes were statistically significant when 600 g of force was applied within 30 days of distraction (P < .05). Conclusions : Transsutural distraction osteogenesis in the growing dog should be safe and well tolerated in inducing bony lengthening of the maxilla, and the optimal force is 600 × g. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 and bone morphogenetic protein-4 may play an important roles in the signaling pathways that link mechanical forces and biological responses.

show abstract

Minipig Model of Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis: Immunohistochemical and Histomorphometric Analysis of the Sequence of Osteogenesis

Papadaki

Kaban

Troulis

2012

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transplantation of New Autologous Biomaterials into Jaw Cleft

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical models of jaw-bone defects for bone tissue engineering

Oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical models of jaw-bone defects for bone tissue engineering

Transsutural Distraction and Tissue Regeneration of the Midfacial Skeleton: Experimental Studies in Growing Dogs

Minipig Model of Maxillary Distraction Osteogenesis: Immunohistochemical and Histomorphometric Analysis of the Sequence of Osteogenesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About