Blaire V Slavin, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Marcelo Parra, Robert D Spielman, Matteo S Torquati, Nicholas J Iglesias, Paulo G Coelho, Lukasz Witek
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study.","authors":"Blaire V Slavin, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Marcelo Parra, Robert D Spielman, Matteo S Torquati, Nicholas J Iglesias, Paulo G Coelho, Lukasz Witek","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12050459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (<i>p</i> > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12108621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12050459","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (p > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering