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
- 4 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsGBR Resorbable collagen membrane New bone formation Critical size defects Xenograft Xenogeneic
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.
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.
This study does not involve human participants, consent not available.
- 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
- 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
- 20.Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO (1986) The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop 205:299–308Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 39.Eyre-Brook AL (1984) The periosteum: its function reassessed. Clin Orthop 189:300–307Google Scholar