Histological Evaluation of Lyophilized Inorganic Bovine Medullary Bone Graft in Block for Correction of Mandibular Bone Defect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21270/archi.v12i1.5660Keywords:
Bone Transplantation, Transplants, Osteogenesis, Mouth RehabilitationAbstract
Objective: To perform a comparative histological analysis of autogenous graft with that of lyophilized inorganic bovine bone marrow in block, for correction of bone defects in rabbit mandibles. Methodology: 48 albino rabbits were divided into 2 experimental groups. Groups A: autogenous graft and Group B: xenogenous graft with lyophilized inorganic bovine medullary bone in block. The grafts were fixed with miniplates and titanium screws on the left side of the mandibular body. The animals were sacrificed at 7, 15, 30, 60, 90 and 180 days after surgery. Histological analysis was performed using optical microscopy in four areas: Zone of “Transition between Primary Bone (OP) and Graft”; “Primary Bone Periphery”; “Graft Periphery”. Points were assigned for the findings of different types of cells and tissues: inflammation, connective tissue and neoformed bone. Result: Bone neoformation was observed 15 days after surgery inside the xenogenous graft. Graft incorporation can be noticed from 60 days after surgery in the 2 groups. Inflammation and connective tissue were noted in both groups to different degrees in the studied areas. Abscesses were observed involving dental elements. There were no statistical differences (p=0.1322) when comparing the data from the xenograft with autograft group regarding the newly formed bone, in all areas analyzed. Conclusion: The lyophilized inorganic bovine bone graft did not cause adverse reactions; proved to be biocompatible; and allowed bone neoformation.
Downloads
References
Park-Min KH. Metabolic reprogramming in osteoclasts. Semin Immunopathol. 2019;41(5):565-72.
Blair HC, Larrouture QC, Li Y, et al. Osteoblast differentiation and bone matrix formation in vivo and in vitro. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2017;23(3):268-80.
Torroni A, Marianetti TM, Romandini M, et al. Mandibular reconstruction with different techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(3):885-90.
Winkler T, Sass FA, Duda GN, et al. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: The unsolved challenge. Bone Joint Res. 2018;7(3):232-43.
Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, et al. Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: A review of current trends and developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10):3007.
Kamal M, Gremse F, Rosenhain S, et al. Comparison of bone grafts from various donor sites in human bone specimens. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(6):1661-5.
Gjerde CG, Shanbhag S, Neppelberg E, et al. Patient experience following iliac crest-derived alveolar bone grafting and implant placement. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):4.
Fillingham Y, Jacobs J. Bone grafts and their substitutes. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):6-9.
Merli M, Nieri M, Mariotti G, et al. The fence technique: Autogenous bone graft versus 50% deproteinized bovine bone matrix / 50% autogenous bone graft-A clinical double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(12):1223-31.
Faverani LP, Ramalho-Ferreira G, dos Santos PH, et al. Surgical techniques for maxillary bone grafting - literature review. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2014;41(1):61-7.
Artas G, Gul M, Acikan I, et al. A comparison of different bone graft materials in peri-implant guided bone regeneration. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e59.
de Azambuja Carvalho PH, dos Santos Trento G, Moura LB, et al. Horizontal ridge augmentation using xenogenous bone graft-systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;23(3):271-9.
Gehrke SA, Mazón P, Pérez-Díaz L, et al. Study of two bovine bone blocks (sintered and non-sintered) used for bone grafts: Physico-chemical characterization and in vitro bioactivity and cellular analysis. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(3):452.
da Silva HF, Goulart DR, Sverzut AT, et al. Comparison of two anorganic bovine bone in maxillary sinus lift: a split-mouth study with clinical, radiographical, and histomorphometrical analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):17.
Pereira RDS, Bonardi JP, Ouverney FRF, et al. The new bone formation in human maxillary sinuses using two bone substitutes with different resorption types associated or not with autogenous bone graft: a comparative histomorphometric, immunohistochemical and randomized clinical study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;29:e20200568.
Arab H, Shiezadeh F, Moeintaghavi A, et al. Comparison of two regenerative surgical treatments for peri-implantitis defect using natix alone or in combination with Bio-Oss and collagen membrane. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2016;26(3):199-204.
Renvert S, Giovannoli JL, Roos-Jansåker AM, et al. Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without a deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a native bilayer collagen membrane: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48(10):1312-21.
Gharpure AS, Bhatavadekar NB. Clinical efficacy of tooth-bone graft: A systematic review and risk of bias analysis of randomized control trials and observational studies. Implant Dent. 2018;27(1):119-34.
Titsinides S, Agrogiannis G, Karatzas T. Bone grafting materials in dentoalveolar reconstruction: A comprehensive review. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019;55(1):26-32.
Young C, Sandstedt P, Skoglund A. A comparative study of anorganic xenogenic bone and autogenous bone implants for bone regeneration in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(1):72-6.
Piattelli M, Favero GA, Scarano A, et al. Bone reactions to anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a histologic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(6):835-40.
Araújo AC, Machado IG, Isolan TMP. Avaliação histológica de implantes de osso liofilizado bovino (Bio Bone® laminado) em mandíbula de cão. Rev Bras Cir Implant, 2000;7(25):36-9.
Soares LG, Magalhães EB, Magalhães CA, et al. New bone formation around implants inserted on autologous and xenografts irradiated or not with IR laser light: a histomorphometric study in rabbits. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(3):218-23.
Barbosa Júnior SA, Maroli A, Pereira GKR, et al. Membranas de colágeno vs politetrafluoretileno expandido para regeneração óssea guiada simultânea à colocação de implante - uma revisão sistemática. J Oral Invest. 2019;8(2):59-72.
Restrepo LL, Consolaro A, Toledo Filho JL. Avaliação de implantes de osso bovino liofilizado Ósseobond”e membrana reabsorvível de osso bovino liofilizado. Rev Bras Implant, 1998;8-14.
Artzi Z, Givol N, Rohrer MD, et al. Qualitative and quantitative expression of bovine bone mineral in experimental bone defects. Part I: Description of a dog model and histological observations. J Periodontol 2003; 74:1143-52.
Artzi Z, Givol N, Rohrer MD, et al. Qualitative and quantitative expression of bovine bone mineral in experimental bone defects. Part II: morphometric analysis. J Periodontol 2003;74:1153-60.
Van der Stok J, Van Lieshout EM, El-Massoudi Y, et al. Bone substitutes in the Netherlands–a systematic literature review. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(2):739-50.
Wu G, Hunziker EB, Zheng Y, et al. Functionalization of deproteinized bovine bone with a coating-incorporated depot of BMP-2 renders the material efficiently osteoinductive and suppresses foreign-body reactivity. Bone. 2011;49(6):1323-30.
Young C, Sandstedt P, Skogeund A. A comparative study of anorganic xenogenic bone and autogenous bone implants for bone regeneration in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(1):72-6.
Piattelli M, Favero GA, Scarano A, et al. Bone Reactions to anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a histilogic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(6):835-40.
