Advertisement

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 464–470 | Cite as

Comparative, Histological and Histomorphometric Analysis of Three Anorganic Bovine Xenogenous Bone Substitutes: Bio-Oss, Bone-Fill and Gen-Ox Anorganic

  • Rafael ManfroEmail author
  • Fabiano Silva Fonseca
  • Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi
  • Wilson Roberto Sendyk
Research Paper

Abstract

Introduction

Anorganic bovine xenogenous grafts show the best performance as bone substitutes in implantodontics. Bio-Oss is the world’s most widely used and investigated anorganic bone substitute. This article compares two anorganic bovine bone substitutes (Bone-Fill and Gen-Ox anorganic) with Bio-Oss.

Materials and Methods

Eight New Zealand rabbits were implanted with 4 titanium cylinders randomly filled with Bio-Oss, Bone-Fill, Gen-Ox anorganic or a blood clot. Four animals were sacrificed after 8 weeks; 12 weeks later, the remaining four were sacrificed. The contents of the cylinders were removed, cut and stained with HE before they were evaluated with an optical microscope. The samples were submitted to histomorphometry for analysis.

Results

The bone formation with Bio-Oss at 8 weeks was 8.43 mm2; at 12 weeks, it was 9.32 mm2. The bone formation with Bone-Fill at 8 weeks was 7.24 mm2; at 12 weeks, it was 9.01 mm2. The bone formation with Gen-Ox anorganic at 8 weeks was 2.78 mm2; at 12 weeks, it was 3.02 mm2. The bone formation with the blood clot at 8 weeks was 0.65 mm2; at 12 weeks, it was 0.63 mm2.

Conclusion

Following this model, Bone-Fill was comparable to Bio-Oss and superior to Gen-Ox and blood clot.

Keywords

Osseointegrated implants Bone reconstruction Anorganic bovine xenogenous graft 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Sistema de Implantes Nacional represented by Ms Neide Lenharo and Dr. Ariel Lenharo for donating the titanium cylinders and screws used to conduct the experiments. The authors also thank Dr. Nelson Villa (Department of Histology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro/SP) and Dr. Andre Pelegrine for surgical assistance. The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rokn AR, Khodadoostan MA, Reza Rasouli Ghahroudi AA, Motahhary P, Kharrazi Fard MJ, Bruyn HD, Afzalifar R, Soolar E, Soolari A (2011) Bone formation with two types of grafting materials: a histologic and histomorphometric study. Open Dent J 5:96–104PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J (1998) Long-term success of sinus augmentation using various surgical approaches and grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:52–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al Ruhaimi KA (2001) Bone graft substitutes: a comparative qualitative histologic review of current osteoconductive grafting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:105–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P (2012) Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:263–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAllister BS, Margolin MD, Cogan AG et al (1999) Eighteen-month radiographic and histologic evaluation of sinus grafting with anorganic bovine bone in the chimpanzee. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:361–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schlegel KA, Fichtner G, Shultze-Mosgau S (2003) Histologic Findings in sinus augmentation with autogenous bone chips versus a bovine bone substitute. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:53–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slott EC, Lundgren D, Burgos PM (2003) Placement of autogeneic bone chips or bovine bone mineral in guided bone augmentation: a rabbit skull study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:795–805Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferreira CEA, Novaes AB Jr, Haraszthy VI, Bittencourt M, Martinelli CB, Luczyszyn SM (2009) A clinical study of 406 sinus augmentation with 100 % anorganic bovine bone. J Periodontol 80:1920–1927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Urban IA, Nagursky H, Lozada JL (2011) Horizontal ridge augmentation with a resorbable membrane and particulated autogenous bone with or without anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 22 patients. Int J Oral Implants 26:404–414Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aghazadeh A, Rutger Persson G, Renvert S (2012) A single-centre randomized controlled clinical trial on the adjunct treatment of intra-bony defects with autogenous bone or a xenograft: results after 12 months. J Clin Periodontol 39:666–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen T, Schou S, Stavropoulos A, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P (2012) Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft in animals: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:114–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen T, Schou S, Gundersen HJ, Forman JL, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P (2013) Bone-to-implant contact after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss and autogenous bone in different ratios in mini pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:635–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen RE, Mullary RH, Noble B, Comeau RL, Neiders ME (1994) Phenotypic characterization of mononuclear cells following anorganic bovine bone implantation in rats. J Periodontol 65:1008–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hämmerle CH, Lang NP (2001) Single stage surgery combining transmucosal implant placement with guide bone regeneration and bioresorbable materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carinci F, Piatelli A, Degidi M, Palmieri A, Perrotto V, Scapoli L, Martinelli M, Laino G, Pezzetti F (2006) Genetic effects of anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) on osteoblast-like MG63 cells. Arch Oral Biol 51:154–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palmieri A, Pezzetti F, Brunelli G, Martinelli M, Muzio L, Scarano A, Scapoli L, Arlotti M, Guerzoni L, Carinci F (2010) Anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) regulates mi RNA of osteoblast-like cells. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 30:83–87Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piatelli M, Favero GA, Scarano A, Orsini G, Piatelli A (1999) Bone reactions to anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a histologic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int J. Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:835–840Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor JC, Cuff SE, Leger JPL et al (2002) In vitro osteoclast resorption of bone substitute biomaterials used for implant site augmentation: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:321–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aghaloo TL, Moy PK, Frymiller EG (2004) Evaluation of platelet-rich plasma in combination with anorganic bovine bone in the rabbit cranium: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:59–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidlin PR, Nicholls F, Kruse A, Zwahlen RA, Weber FE (2013) Evaluation of moldable, in situ hardening calcium phosphate bone graft substitutes. Clin Oral Impl Res 24:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ezirganlı S, Polat S, Barıs E, Tatar I, Celik HH (2013) Comparative investigation of the effects of different materials used with a titanium barrier on new bone formation. Clin Oral Impl Res 24(312):319Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polo CI, Lima JLO, De Lucca L, Piacezzi CB, Homem MGN, Chavez VEA, Sendyk WR (2013) Effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 associated with a variety of bone substitutes on vertical guided bone regeneration in rabbit calvarium. J Periodontol 84:360–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dung SZ, Tu YK (2012) Effect of different alloplast materials on the stability of vertically augmented new tissue. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:1375–1381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lundgren AK, Lundgren D, Hämmerle CH, Nyman S, Sennerby L (2000) Influence of decortication of the donor bone on guided bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rabbit skull bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:99–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guirado JLG, Fernández MPR, Negri B, Ruiz RAD, de-Val JEMS, Moreno JG (2013) Experimental model of bone response to collagenized xenografts of porcine origin (OsteoBiol® mp3): a radiological and histomorphometric study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frame JW (1980) A convenient animal model for testing bone substitute materials. J Oral Surg 38:176–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frost HM (1963) Bone remodeling dynamics. Charles C Thomas Publisher, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Manfro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabiano Silva Fonseca
    • 2
  • Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi
    • 3
  • Wilson Roberto Sendyk
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Dental ImplantologySOEBRASFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.VitóriaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Implantodontic Maxillofacial SurgeryUNOESCJoaçabaBrazil
  4. 4.UNISASanto AmaroBrazil

Personalised recommendations