Blaire V Slavin, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Marcelo Parra, Robert D Spielman, Matteo S Torquati, Nicholas J Iglesias, Paulo G Coelho, Lukasz Witek
{"title":"牛和猪去蛋白移植物引导骨再生的比较评价:体内研究。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
引导骨再生(GBR)程序已被证明可以增强骨反应,可靠地再生丢失的组织,并为生物力学有利和假体驱动的种植体放置创造解剖学上令人愉悦的脊轮廓。本研究的目的是评估和比较去蛋白牛骨(DBB)和去蛋白猪骨(DPB)在小猎犬下颌骨移植模型中的骨再生性能。在10只成年比格犬中,每只犬分别通过下颌骨厚度诱发4个双侧10 mm × 10 mm的缺损。其中两个缺损用DPB填充,另外两个用DBB填充,然后用胶原基膜覆盖,以实现区隔愈合。动物分别在术后6周、12周、24周和48周实施安乐死。通过定性组织学和定量显微层析分析评估骨再生能力。使用混合模型分析比较骨(%)、移植物(%)和间隙(%)的显微计算机断层扫描数据。在质量上,在任何时间点DBB和DPB移植物之间没有观察到愈合的组织形态学差异。到48周时,观察到异种移植物(DBB和DPB)与再生海绵状骨骨结合,并且与天然骨形态非常相似。定量地,随着时间的推移,在DBB和DPB移植治疗的缺陷中观察到更高的骨量(%)和相应的空隙减少(%)。而DBB(48周时为71.04±8.41)与DPB(48周时为68.38±10.30)在骨量(%)上无统计学差异(p < 0.05)。GBR合并DBB和DPB未显示出不良免疫反应的迹象,并且在允许愈合的48周内导致骨再生的趋势相似。
Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study.
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