Guided bone regeneration in calvarial critical size bony defect using a double-layer resorbable collagen membrane covering a xenograft: a histological and histomorphometric study in rats

Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to evaluate histologically and histomorphometrically the bone regeneration in critical size calvarial defects in rats grafted with either a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) alone or in combination with a single or double layer of native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM). The secondary objective was to evaluate histologically and histomorphometrically the residual DBBM in these defects.

Material and methods

Thirty-two Wistar rats were divided into two groups: a control group of 16 rats with two critical size calvarial defects (CSD) of 5 mm performed each on either side of the median sagittal suture, where the frontal defect remained without any filling (negative control), while the occipital defect (positive control) was filled with DBBM; and then a test group of 16 rats, with two CSD filled with DBBM and covered by either a single (SM) or a double layer (DM) of NBCM. The animals were sacrificed at 4 and 8 weeks.

Results

At 1 month, the histological and histomorphometric analysis showed new bone formation (NBF) in the defects that received only DBBM, DBBM+DM, and DBBM+SM (11.5, 17.3, and 22.7%, respectively), while the negative control defects showed only 0.4% of new bone formation. At 2 months, the histological and histomorphometric analysis showed NBF in the defects that received only DBBM, DBBM+DM, and DBBM+SM (16.8, 24.5, and 37%, respectively), while the negative control defects showed only 0.9% of new bone formation. The residual xenogeneic material (RXM) was higher in defects covered by SM (30.2% at 1 month and 25.3% at 2 months) or DM (32.5% at 1 month and 28.5% at 2 months) compared with defects that were not covered by membranes (15.3% at 1 month and 9.4% at 2 months).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that GBR with a xenogeneic material in rat calvarial (CSD) of 5 mm requires the application of resorbable collagen membranes in either single or double layer, and a single layer alone is sufficient to promote this regeneration.

Keywords

GBR Resorbable collagen membrane New bone formation Critical size defects Xenograft Xenogeneic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mr. Charbel Mansour for his technical assistance in the preparation of the histological sections and Dr. Nada Osta for her statistical advice and analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of the animals were followed. All procedures performed on animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the research committee at Saint Joseph University.

Informed consent

This study does not involve human participants, consent not available.

References

  1. 1.
    Urban IA, Monje A, Nevins M, Lozada JL, Wang HL (2016) Surgical management of significant maxillary anterior vertical ridge defect. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36(3):329–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S (1988) Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nyman S, Gottlow J, Karring T, Lindhe J (1982) The regenerative potential of the periodontal ligament. An experimental study in the monkey. J Clin Periodontol 9:257–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gottlow J, Nyman S, Lindhe J, Karring T, Wennström J (1986) New attachment formation in the human periodontium by guided tissue regeneration. Case reports. J Clin Periodontol 13:604–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keestra JA, Barry O, Jong LD, Wahl G (2016) Long term effects of vertical bone augmentation: a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 24(1):3–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trombelli L, Farina R, Marzola A, Itro A, Calura G (2008) GBR and autogenous cortical bone particulate by bone scraper for alveolar ridge augmentation: a 2-case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23:111–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chappuis V, Cavusoglu Y, Buser D, von Arx T (2017) Lateral ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and guided bone regeneration: a 10-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 10:124–138Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maiorana C, Beretta M, Salina S, Santoro F (2005) Reduction of autogenous bone graft resorption by means of Bio-Oss coverage: a prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:19–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baldini N, De Sanctis M, Ferrari M (2011) Deproteinized bovine bone in periodontal and implant surgery. Dent Mater 27:61–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kämmerer PW, Klein MO, Duschner H, Wagner W (2013) Long-term integration and resorption kinetics of a xenogeneic bone substitute after sinus floor augmentation: histomorphometric analyses of human biopsy specimens. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertolo A, Mehr M, Aebli N, Baur M, Ferguson SJ (2012) Influence of different commercial scaffolds on the in vitro differenciation of human mesenchymal stem cells to nucleus pulposus-like cells. Eur Spine J 6:826–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwarz F, Sager M, Rothamel D, Sculean A, Becker J (2006) Use of native and cross-linked collagen membranes for guided tissue and bone regeneration. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 116(11):1112–1123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Ferrari D (2008) Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-like type defect. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(4):402–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Willerhausen L, Barbeck M, Boehm N, Sader R, Ghanaati S (2014) Non cross-linked collagen type I/III materials enhance cell proliferation: in vitro and in vivo evidence. J Appl Oral Sci 22:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Arx T, Buser D (2006) Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maiorana C, Beretta M, Santoro F, Herford S, Nagursky H (2011) Histomorphometric evaluation of anorganic bovine bone coverage to reduce autogenous grafts resorption. Preliminary results. Open Dent 25:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL, Nagy K (2013) Horizontal ridge augmentation with a collagen membrane and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 25 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33:299–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meloni SM, Jovanovic SA, Urban I, Canullo L, Pisano M (2017) Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native collagen membrane and 1:1 ratio of particulated xenograft and autologous bone: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19:38–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim S-H, Kim D-Y, Kim K-H, Ku Y, Rhyu I-C, Lee Y-M (2009) The efficacy of a double-layer collagen membrane technique for overlaying block grafts in a rabbit calvarium model. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1124–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO (1986) The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop 205:299–308Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vajgel A, Mardas N, Farias BC, Petrie A, Cimões R, Donos N (2014) A systematic review on the critical size defect model. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:879–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE (2003) Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontol 2000 33:36–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Canullo L, Trisi P, Simion M (2006) Vertical ridge augmentation around implants using e-PTFE titanium-reinforced membrane and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss): a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 4:355–361Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aghaloo TL, Moy PK (2007) Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22(Suppl):49–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buser D, Dula K, Belser UC, Hirt HP, Berthold H (1995) Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. II. Surgical procedure in the mandible. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 15:10–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buser D, Dula K, Hirt HP, Schenk RK (1996) Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:420–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Widmark G, Andersson B, Ivanoff CJ (1997) Mandibular bone graft in the anterior maxilla for single-tooth implants. Presentation of surgical method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:106–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chiapasco M, Abati S, Romeo E, Vogel G (1999) Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:278–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Antoun H, Sitbon JM, Martinez H, Missika P (2001) A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of bone augmentation: onlay graft alone or associated with a membrane. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:632–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Augthun M, Yildirim M, Spiekermann H, Biesterfeld S (1995) Healing of bone defects in combination with immediate implants using the membrane technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10:421–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lang NP, Hämmerle CH, Brägger U, Lehmann B, Nyman SR (1994) Guided tissue regeneration in jawbone defects prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:92–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L, Cardaropoli G (2012) Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 32:421–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perelman-Karmon M, Kozlovsky A, Liloy R, Artzi Z (2012) Socket site preservation using bovine bone mineral with or without a bioresorbable collagen membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 32:459–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Esposito M, Cannizarro G, Soardi E, Pelligrino G, Pistilli R (2011) A 3-year post loading report of a randomised controlled trial on the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic mandibules: short implants or longer implants in vertically augmented bone ? Eur J Oral Implantol 4:301–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kozlovsky A, Aboodi G, Moses O, Tal H, Artzi Z, Weinreb M, Nemcovsky CE (2009) Bio-degradation of a resorbable collagen membrane (Bio-Gide) applied in a double-layer technique in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1116–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Steenberghe D, Callens A, Geers L, Jacobs R (2000) The clinical use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral on bone regeneration in conjunction with immediate implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:210–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Develioglu H, Unver Saraydin S, Kartal U (2009) The bone-healing effect of a xenograft in a rat calvarial defect model. Dent Mater J 28:396–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    MacNeill SR, Cobb CM, Rapley JW, Glaros AG, Spencer P (1999) In vivo comparison of synthetic osseous graft materials. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol 26:239–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eyre-Brook AL (1984) The periosteum: its function reassessed. Clin Orthop 189:300–307Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dahlin C, Alberius P, Linde A (1991) Osteopromotion for cranioplasty. An experimental study in rats using a membrane technique. J Neurosurg 74:487–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mardas N, Stavropoulos A, Karring T (2008) Calvarial bone regeneration by a combination of natural anorganic bovine-derived hydroxyapatite matrix coupled with a synth etic cell-binding peptide (PepGen): an experimental study in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1010–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Verna C, Dalstra M, Wikesjö UME, Trombelli L (2002) Healing patterns in calvarial bone defects following guided bone regeneration in rats. A micro-CT scan analysis. J Clin Periodontol 29:865–870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Schärer P (1997) Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:844–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dupoirieux L, Pourquier D, Picot MC, Neves M (2001) Comparative study of three different membranes for guided bone regeneration of rat cranial defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30:58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Periodontology, Faculty of DentistryUniversité Saint JosephBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations