Effect of Membrane Fixation and the Graft Combinations on Horizontal Bone Regeneration: Radiographic and Histologic Outcomes in a Canine Model

Overview

Journal Biomater Res

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2024 Jul 30

PMID 39076892

Authors

Jeong-Won Paik

Yoon-Hee Kwon

Jin-Young Park

Ronald E Jung

Ui-Won Jung

Daniel S Thoma

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of membrane fixation and combinations of bone substitute materials and barrier membranes on horizontal bone regeneration in peri-implant defects. Eight mongrel dogs underwent chronic buccal peri-implant dehiscence defects creation and were randomized into 4 groups: (a) deproteinized bovine bone mineral 1 (DBBM1) with a native collagen membrane (CM) (BB group, positive control group), (b) DBBM1 with native CM and 2 fixation pins (BBP group), (c) DBBM2 with a cross-linked CM (XC group), and (d) DBBM2 with cross-linked CM and 2 fixation pins (XCP group). Following 16 weeks of healing, tissues were radiographically and histomorphometrically analyzed. The total augmented area was significantly larger in the BBP, XC, and XCP groups compared to the BB group (4.27 ± 3.21, 7.17 ± 7.23, and 6.91 ± 5.45 mm versus 1.35 ± 1.28 mm, respectively; = 0.022). No significant difference for the augmented tissue thickness was observed among the 4 groups. The augmented tissue thickness measured at 3 mm below the implant shoulder was higher in BBP, XC, and XCP than that in BB (2.43 ± 1.53, 2.62 ± 1.80, and 3.18 ± 1.96 mm versus 0.80 ± 0.90 mm, respectively), trending toward significance ( = 0.052). DBBM2 and a cross-linked CM were significantly more favorable for horizontal bone regeneration compared to DBBM1 and a native CM. However, when DBBM1 and a native CM were secured with fixation pins, outcomes were similar. The addition of pins did not lead to more favorable outcomes when a cross-linked CM was used.

Citing Articles

A Flexible Membrane May Improve Bone Regeneration by Increasing Hydrophilicity and Conformability in Lateral Bone Augmentation.

Lee D, Ko Y, Koo K, Seol Y, Lee Y, Lee J Biomater Res. 2024; 28:0113.

PMID: 39559494 PMC: 11570787. DOI: 10.34133/bmr.0113.

References

Janner S, Bosshardt D, Cochran D, Chappuis V, Huynh-Ba G, Jones A . The influence of collagen membrane and autogenous bone chips on bone augmentation in the anterior maxilla: a preclinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(11):1368-1380. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12996. View

Mir-Mari J, Benic G, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Hammerle C, Jung R . Influence of wound closure on the volume stability of particulate and non-particulate GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Part II. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(6):631-639. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12845. View

Benic G, Hammerle C . Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000. 2014; 66(1):13-40. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12039. View

Donos N, Mardas N, Chadha V . Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35(8 Suppl):173-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01269.x. View

Cornelini R, Cangini F, Martuscelli G, Wennstrom J . Deproteinized bovine bone and biodegradable barrier membranes to support healing following immediate placement of transmucosal implants: a short-term controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 24(6):555-63. View

Carpio L, LOZA J, Lynch S, Genco R . Guided bone regeneration around endosseous implants with anorganic bovine bone mineral. A randomized controlled trial comparing bioabsorbable versus non-resorbable barriers. J Periodontol. 2000; 71(11):1743-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.11.1743. View

Jung U, Cha J, Vignoletti F, Nunez J, Sanz J, Sanz M . Simultaneous lateral bone augmentation and implant placement using a particulated synthetic bone substitute around chronic peri-implant dehiscence defects in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44(11):1172-1180. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12802. View

Park J, Chung H, Strauss F, Lee J . Dimensional changes after horizontal and vertical guided bone regeneration without membrane fixation using the retentive flap technique: A 1-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023; 25(5):871-880. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13237. View

Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T . Guided bone regeneration of non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(11):1466-1476. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13014. View

10.

Mazzanti B, Lorenzi B, Borghini A, Boieri M, Ballerini L, Saccardi R . Local injection of bone marrow progenitor cells for the treatment of anal sphincter injury: in-vitro expanded versus minimally-manipulated cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016; 7(1):85. PMC: 4915145. DOI: 10.1186/s13287-016-0344-x. View

11.

Wang H, Boyapati L . "PASS" principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(1):8-17. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f. View

12.

Jensen S, Terheyden H . Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24 Suppl:218-36. View

13.

Porcaro G, Busa A, Bianco E, Caccianiga G, Maddalone M . Use of a Partial-thickness Flap for Guided Bone Regeneration in the Upper Jaw. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017; 18(12):1117-1121. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2186. View

14.

Park W, Crasto G, Han J, Kang P, Lim H . Bone Regenerative Potential of Cross-Linked Collagen Membrane in Peri-Implant Osseous Defect: Case Series with Histologic/Micro-Computed Tomographic Findings. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(1). PMC: 9861024. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59010176. View

15.

Park J, Song Y, Ko K, Strauss F, Thoma D, Lee J . Effect of collagen membrane fixation on ridge volume stability and new bone formation following guided bone regeneration. J Clin Periodontol. 2022; 49(7):684-693. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13665. View

16.

Mir-Mari J, Wui H, Jung R, Hammerle C, Benic G . Influence of blinded wound closure on the volume stability of different GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(2):258-65. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12590. View

17.

Friedmann A, Fickl S, Fischer K, Dalloul M, Goetz W, Kauffmann F . Horizontal Augmentation of Chronic Mandibular Defects by the Guided Bone Regeneration Approach: A Randomized Study in Dogs. Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(1). PMC: 8746186. DOI: 10.3390/ma15010238. View

18.

Cha J, Joo M, Yoon S, Lee J, Choi S, Jung U . Sequential healing of onlay bone grafts using combining biomaterials with cross-linked collagen in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(1):76-85. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12763. View

19.

Krasilnikova O, Baranovskii D, Yakimova A, Arguchinskaya N, Kisel A, Sosin D . Intraoperative Creation of Tissue-Engineered Grafts with Minimally Manipulated Cells: New Concept of Bone Tissue Engineering In Situ. Bioengineering (Basel). 2022; 9(11). PMC: 9687730. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9110704. View

20.

Ren Y, Fan L, Alkildani S, Liu L, Emmert S, Najman S . Barrier Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR): A Focus on Recent Advances in Collagen Membranes. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(23). PMC: 9735671. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232314987. View