Premium
Effects of various implant materials on regeneration of calvarial defects in rats
Author(s) -
Lim SungChul,
Lee MiJa,
Yeo HwanHo
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
pathology international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.73
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1440-1827
pISSN - 1320-5463
DOI - 10.1046/j.1440-1827.2000.01089.x
Subject(s) - regeneration (biology) , implant , fibronectin , membrane , biomedical engineering , barrier membrane , chemistry , bone healing , dentistry , pathology , microbiology and biotechnology , anatomy , medicine , surgery , biology , extracellular matrix , biochemistry
The purpose of the present study was to determine the best implant material, the best conditions to substitute absorbable membrane for non‐absorbable membrane, and the factors influencing guided regeneration of critical size defects using experimental rats. An 8‐mm circular transosseous calvarial bony defect was made and implant materials, such as demineralized freeze‐dried bone (DFDB), absorbable membrane (BioMesh; Samyang Co., Seoul Korea), non‐absorbable membrane (Millipore filter; Micro Filtration System, MA, USA) or a combination of these materials, was placed on the defect. As for the results of sequential time‐based guided bone regeneration, histological, histochemical, immunohistochemical and histomorphometric aspects were observed, and a statistical comparative analysis was performed, with control group of a soft tissue flap. Bone formation was significantly enhanced when DFDB was retained within the defect with a protective absorbable membrane. Inframembranous DFDB‐filling was required to prevent membrane collapse and to preserve spaces for bone regeneration. The absorbable membrane which was recommended to overcome the disadvantages of the non‐absorbable membrane should remain intact for more than 5 weeks in order for it to be effective. The macrophages recruited by grafts were involved partly in decreasing bone regeneration via the sequential events of releasing fibronectin, and in chemotactic effect of the fibronectin to fibroblasts and collagen lay‐down. Thus, the activity of new bone formation was dependent upon the physical barrier effect of the membrane, such as the preserving ability to secure spaces and the suppression ability of early infiltration of collagen and epithelium, inducible ability of inflammation by the implant material, and potential in guiding bone regeneration of the grafts.