Jeong-Won Paik, Yoon-Hee Kwon, Jin-Young Park, Ronald E Jung, Ui-Won Jung, Daniel S Thoma
{"title":"Effect of Membrane Fixation and the Graft Combinations on Horizontal Bone Regeneration: Radiographic and Histologic Outcomes in a Canine Model.","authors":"Jeong-Won Paik, Yoon-Hee Kwon, Jin-Young Park, Ronald E Jung, Ui-Won Jung, Daniel S Thoma","doi":"10.34133/bmr.0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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<sup>2</sup> versus 1.35 ± 1.28 mm<sup>2</sup>, respectively; <i>P</i> = 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 (<i>P</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":93902,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterials research","volume":"28 ","pages":"0055"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterials research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34133/bmr.0055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 mm2 versus 1.35 ± 1.28 mm2, respectively; P = 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 (P = 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.