Comparison of Extraction Sites Versus Artificial Defects with Xenogenic Bone Substitute in Minipigs

Overview

Journal Clin Exp Dent Res

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2021 Jan 5

PMID 33398935

Citations 2

Authors

Constanze Steiner

Matthias Karl

Matthias W Laschke

Peter Schupbach

Andrea Venturato

Angelines Gasser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The preclinical evaluation of bone substitutes is frequently performed in artificially created defects. However, such defects do not reflect the predominant clinical application of bone substitutes for socket preservation. Hence, the goal of this animal study was to compare the performance of a xenogenic bone substitute in extraction sites versus artificial defects.

Material And Methods: Four study sites each were created in the mandibles of four minipigs in the region of the third premolars and first molars, respectively. On one side, fresh extraction sockets were established while contralaterally trephine defects were created in healed alveolar bone. All sites were augmented using a particulate xenogenic bone substitute, covered by resorbable membranes and allowed to heal for 12 weeks. The amounts of new bone, non-bone tissue and remaining bone substitute granules were quantified through histological and micro-CT analysis. Comparative statistics were based on t-tests for two samples and ANOVA with the level of significance set at α = 0.05.

Results: Histomorphometric data from only two animals could be quantitatively analyzed due to difficulty with identifying the surgical sites. The percentage of newly formed bone ranged between 53.2% ± 5.6% for artificial defects and 54.9% ± 12.4% for extraction sites. With the exception of ANOVA indicating a greater amount of non-bone tissue in extraction sites as compared to artificial sites (p = 0.047), no statistically significant differences were observed. Micro-CT scans showed patterns similar to the ones observed in histomorphometry. As extraction sites could be identified only in two micro-CT reconstructions, quantitative assessment was not undertaken.

Conclusions: Despite the comparable performance of bone substitute material in artificial defects and extraction sites found here, the data gathered with this experiment was insufficient for showing equivalence of both approaches.

Citing Articles

Histomorphometric Assessment of Non-Decalcified Plastic-Embedded Specimens for Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitute Materials-A Systematic Review.

Rogova V, Peev S, Yotsova R, Gerova-Vatsova T, Parushev I Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(1.

PMID: 39795764 PMC: 11722015. DOI: 10.3390/ma18010119.

In Vitro Handling Characteristics of a Particulate Bone Substitute for Ridge Preservation Procedures.

Dahl S, Klar-Quarz V, Schulz A, Karl M, Grobecker-Karl T Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(2).

PMID: 38255481 PMC: 10817230. DOI: 10.3390/ma17020313.

Comparison of extraction sites versus artificial defects with xenogenic bone substitute in minipigs.

Steiner C, Karl M, Laschke M, Schupbach P, Venturato A, Gasser A Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021; 7(4):490-501.

PMID: 33398935 PMC: 8404495. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.390.

References

Beck T, Mealey B . Histologic analysis of healing after tooth extraction with ridge preservation using mineralized human bone allograft. J Periodontol. 2010; 81(12):1765-72. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100286. View

AMLER M . The time sequence of tissue regeneration in human extraction wounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969; 27(3):309-18. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(69)90357-0. View

Pawlowsky K, Ernst L, Steitz J, Stopinski T, Kogel B, Henger A . The Aachen Minipig: Phenotype, Genotype, Hematological and Biochemical Characterization, and Comparison to the Göttingen Minipig. Eur Surg Res. 2017; 58(5-6):193-203. DOI: 10.1159/000471483. View

Chrcanovic B, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A . Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2014; 43(1):16-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.11.007. View

Misawa M, Lindhe J, Araujo M . The alveolar process following single-tooth extraction: a study of maxillary incisor and premolar sites in man. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(7):884-9. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12710. View

Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N . Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21(7):688-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01918.x. View

Kotsakis G, Boufidou F, Hinrichs J, Prasad H, Rohrer M, Tosios K . Extraction Socket Management Utilizing Platelet Rich Fibrin: A Proof-of-Principle Study of the "Accelerated-Early Implant Placement" Concept. J Oral Implantol. 2015; 42(2):164-8. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-15-00001. View

Khouly I, Keenan A . Review suggests higher failure rates for dental implants placed in fresh extraction sites. Evid Based Dent. 2015; 16(2):54-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401098. View

Jung R, Philipp A, Annen B, Signorelli L, Thoma D, Hammerle C . Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2012; 40(1):90-8. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12027. View

10.

Barone A, Aldini N, Fini M, Giardino R, Calvo Guirado J, Covani U . Xenograft versus extraction alone for ridge preservation after tooth removal: a clinical and histomorphometric study. J Periodontol. 2008; 79(8):1370-7. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.070628. View

11.

Ma J, Pan J, Tan B, Cui F . Determination of critical size defect of minipig mandible. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2009; 3(8):615-22. DOI: 10.1002/term.203. View

12.

Huang L, Liu B, Cha J, Yuan G, Kelly M, Singh G . Mechanoresponsive Properties of the Periodontal Ligament. J Dent Res. 2016; 95(4):467-75. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515626102. View

13.

AMLER M, Johnson P, SALMAN I . Histological and histochemical investigation of human alveolar socket healing in undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960; 61:32-44. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1960.0152. View

14.

Yuan X, Pei X, Zhao Y, Tulu U, Liu B, Helms J . A Wnt-Responsive PDL Population Effectuates Extraction Socket Healing. J Dent Res. 2018; 97(7):803-809. PMC: 6728586. DOI: 10.1177/0022034518755719. View

15.

Oltramari P, Navarro R, Henriques J, Taga R, Cestari T, Janson G . Evaluation of bone height and bone density after tooth extraction: an experimental study in minipigs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104(5):e9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.06.015. View

16.

Boyne P . Osseous repair of the postextraction alveolus in man. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1966; 21(6):805-13. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(66)90104-6. View

17.

Pei X, Wang L, Chen C, Yuan X, Wan Q, Helms J . Contribution of the PDL to Osteotomy Repair and Implant Osseointegration. J Dent Res. 2017; 96(8):909-916. PMC: 5502960. DOI: 10.1177/0022034517707513. View

18.

Schlegel K, Lang F, Donath K, Kulow J, Wiltfang J . The monocortical critical size bone defect as an alternative experimental model in testing bone substitute materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102(1):7-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.011. View

19.

Horvath A, Mardas N, Mezzomo L, Needleman I, Donos N . Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(2):341-63. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0758-5. View

20.

Probst F, Fliefel R, Burian E, Probst M, Eddicks M, Cornelsen M . Bone regeneration of minipig mandibular defect by adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells seeded tri-calcium phosphate- poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):2062. PMC: 7005305. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59038-8. View