Comparative analysis of the in vivo kinetic properties of various bone substitutes filled into a peri-implant canine defect model.

Purpose: Deproteinized bovine bone or synthetic hydroxyapatite are 2 prevalent bone grafting materials used in the clinical treatment of peri-implant bone defects. However, the differences in bone formation among these materials remain unclear. This study evaluated osteogenesis kinetics in peri-implant defects using 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone (Bio-Oss^® and Bio-Oss/Collagen^®) and 2 types of synthetic hydroxyapatite (Apaceram-AX^® and Refit^®). We considered factors including newly generated bone volume; bone, osteoid, and material occupancy; and bone-to-implant contact.

Methods: A beagle model with a mandibular defect was created by extracting the bilateral mandibular third and fourth premolars. Simultaneously, an implant was inserted into the defect, and the space between the implant and the surrounding bone walls was filled with Bio-Oss, Bio-Oss/Collagen, Apaceram-AX, Refit, or autologous bone. Micro-computed tomography and histological analyses were conducted at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (Refit and autologous bone were not included at the 6-month time point due to their rapid absorption).

Results: All materials demonstrated excellent biocompatibility and osteoconductivity. At 3 months, Bio-Oss and Apaceram-AX exhibited significantly greater volumes of formation than the other materials, with Bio-Oss having a marginally higher amount. However, this outcome was reversed at 6 months, with no significant difference between the 2 materials at either time point. Apaceram-AX displayed notably slower bioresorption and the largest quantity of residual material at both time points. In contrast, Refit had significantly greater bioresorption, with complete resorption and rapid maturation involving cortical bone formation at the crest at 3 months, Refit demonstrated the highest mineralized tissue and osteoid occupancy after 3 months, albeit without statistical significance.

Conclusions: Overall, the materials demonstrated varying post-implantation behaviors in vivo. Thus, in a clinical setting, both the properties of these materials and the specific conditions of the defects needing reinforcement should be considered to identify the most suitable material.