Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model

Abstract Background Insufficient bone volume around an implant is a common obstacle when dental implant treatment is considered. Limited vertical or horizontal bone dimensions may lead to exposed implant threads following placement or a gap between the bone and implant. This is often addressed by bo...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Minh Khai Le Thieu, Amin Homayouni, Lena Ringsby Hæren, Hanna Tiainen, Anders Verket, Jan Eirik Ellingsen, Hans Jacob Rønold, Johan Caspar Wohlfahrt, Antonio Gonzalez Cantalapiedra, Fernando Maria Guzon Muñoz, Maria Permuy Mendaña, Ståle Petter Lyngstadaas, Håvard Jostein Haugen
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Bone substitute Animal experimentation Bone ring technique Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5ef56a65f45c4a808774e01f962ba68e
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5ef56a65f45c4a808774e01f962ba68e
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5ef56a65f45c4a808774e01f962ba68e2021-11-28T12:06:14ZImpact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model10.1186/s40824-021-00245-32055-7124https://doaj.org/article/5ef56a65f45c4a808774e01f962ba68e2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00245-3https://doaj.org/toc/2055-7124Abstract Background Insufficient bone volume around an implant is a common obstacle when dental implant treatment is considered. Limited vertical or horizontal bone dimensions may lead to exposed implant threads following placement or a gap between the bone and implant. This is often addressed by bone augmentation procedures prior to or at the time of implant placement. This study evaluated bone healing when a synthetic TiO2 block scaffold was placed in circumferential peri-implant defects with buccal fenestrations. Methods The mandibular premolars were extracted and the alveolar bone left to heal for 4 weeks prior to implant placement in six minipigs. Two cylindrical defects were created in each hemi-mandible and were subsequent to implant placement allocated to treatment with either TiO2 scaffold or sham in a split mouth design. After 12 weeks of healing time, the samples were harvested. Microcomputed tomography (MicroCT) was used to investigate defect fill and integrity of the block scaffold. Distances from implant to bone in vertical and horizontal directions, percentage of bone to implant contact and defect fill were analysed by histology. Results MicroCT analysis demonstrated no differences between the groups for defect fill. Three of twelve scaffolds were partly fractured. At the buccal sites, histomorphometric analysis demonstrated higher bone fraction, higher percentage bone to implant contact and shorter distance from implant top to bone 0.5 mm lateral to implant surface in sham group as compared to the TiO2 group. Conclusions This study demonstrated less bone formation with the use of TiO2 scaffold block in combination with implant placement in cylindrical defects with buccal bone fenestrations, as compared to sham sites.Minh Khai Le ThieuAmin HomayouniLena Ringsby HærenHanna TiainenAnders VerketJan Eirik EllingsenHans Jacob RønoldJohan Caspar WohlfahrtAntonio Gonzalez CantalapiedraFernando Maria Guzon MuñozMaria Permuy MendañaStåle Petter LyngstadaasHåvard Jostein HaugenBMCarticleBone substituteAnimal experimentationBone ring techniqueMedical technologyR855-855.5ENBiomaterials Research, Vol 25, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Bone substitute Animal experimentation Bone ring technique Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	Bone substitute Animal experimentation Bone ring technique Medical technology R855-855.5 Minh Khai Le Thieu Amin Homayouni Lena Ringsby Hæren Hanna Tiainen Anders Verket Jan Eirik Ellingsen Hans Jacob Rønold Johan Caspar Wohlfahrt Antonio Gonzalez Cantalapiedra Fernando Maria Guzon Muñoz Maria Permuy Mendaña Ståle Petter Lyngstadaas Håvard Jostein Haugen Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
description	Abstract Background Insufficient bone volume around an implant is a common obstacle when dental implant treatment is considered. Limited vertical or horizontal bone dimensions may lead to exposed implant threads following placement or a gap between the bone and implant. This is often addressed by bone augmentation procedures prior to or at the time of implant placement. This study evaluated bone healing when a synthetic TiO2 block scaffold was placed in circumferential peri-implant defects with buccal fenestrations. Methods The mandibular premolars were extracted and the alveolar bone left to heal for 4 weeks prior to implant placement in six minipigs. Two cylindrical defects were created in each hemi-mandible and were subsequent to implant placement allocated to treatment with either TiO2 scaffold or sham in a split mouth design. After 12 weeks of healing time, the samples were harvested. Microcomputed tomography (MicroCT) was used to investigate defect fill and integrity of the block scaffold. Distances from implant to bone in vertical and horizontal directions, percentage of bone to implant contact and defect fill were analysed by histology. Results MicroCT analysis demonstrated no differences between the groups for defect fill. Three of twelve scaffolds were partly fractured. At the buccal sites, histomorphometric analysis demonstrated higher bone fraction, higher percentage bone to implant contact and shorter distance from implant top to bone 0.5 mm lateral to implant surface in sham group as compared to the TiO2 group. Conclusions This study demonstrated less bone formation with the use of TiO2 scaffold block in combination with implant placement in cylindrical defects with buccal bone fenestrations, as compared to sham sites.
format	article
author	Minh Khai Le Thieu Amin Homayouni Lena Ringsby Hæren Hanna Tiainen Anders Verket Jan Eirik Ellingsen Hans Jacob Rønold Johan Caspar Wohlfahrt Antonio Gonzalez Cantalapiedra Fernando Maria Guzon Muñoz Maria Permuy Mendaña Ståle Petter Lyngstadaas Håvard Jostein Haugen
author_facet	Minh Khai Le Thieu Amin Homayouni Lena Ringsby Hæren Hanna Tiainen Anders Verket Jan Eirik Ellingsen Hans Jacob Rønold Johan Caspar Wohlfahrt Antonio Gonzalez Cantalapiedra Fernando Maria Guzon Muñoz Maria Permuy Mendaña Ståle Petter Lyngstadaas Håvard Jostein Haugen
author_sort	Minh Khai Le Thieu
title	Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
title_short	Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
title_full	Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
title_fullStr	Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
title_full_unstemmed	Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
title_sort	impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/5ef56a65f45c4a808774e01f962ba68e
work_keys_str_mv	AT minhkhailethieu impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT aminhomayouni impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT lenaringsbyhæren impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT hannatiainen impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT andersverket impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT janeirikellingsen impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT hansjacobrønold impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT johancasparwohlfahrt impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT antoniogonzalezcantalapiedra impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT fernandomariaguzonmunoz impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT mariapermuymendana impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT stalepetterlyngstadaas impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel AT havardjosteinhaugen impactofsimultaneousplacementofimplantandblockbonegraftsubstituteaninvivoperiimplantdefectmodel
_version_	1718408199718043648

Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model

Ejemplares similares