Premium
Effects of ipriflavone on augmented bone using a guided bone regeneration procedure
Author(s) -
Ito Koichi,
Minegishi Tadashi,
Takayama Tadahiro,
Tamura Takanori,
Yamada Yutaka,
Sato Shuichi
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01284.x
Subject(s) - regeneration (biology) , significant difference , chemistry , bone marrow , dentistry , medicine , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
This study investigated the effects of ipriflavone (IP) on augmented bone using a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure. In 15 rabbits, two titanium caps were placed into calvarial bone for GBR. The animals were divided into three groups: the No‐IP (no intake of IP), Post‐IP (IP orally, 10 mg/kg/day after GBR), and Pre‐IP (IP intake beginning before GBR) groups. One cap was removed from each rabbit after 3 months, and the remaining site was a control. One month after one cap removal, all the animals were euthanized, and histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed. In all of the groups, the newly generated tissue was of varying size, and it consisted of thin pieces of mineralized bone and large marrow spaces with fat cells and some hematopoietic cells. In all of the control sites, the newly generated tissue was noted and almost filled the space under the cap. There was a significant difference between groups No‐IP and Pre‐IP (93.8±4.6% vs. 98.5±0.8%, P <0.05). The tissue generated at the test sites in all of the groups was resorbed, and its original shape and volume were not maintained 1 month after one cap removal. In particular, the greatest percentage, approximately 20% of the newly generated tissue, was resorbed in the No‐IP group (93.8±4.6% vs. 73.9±3.7%, P <0.05), and approximately 11% and 15% in groups Post‐IP and Pre‐IP, respectively. The relative amount of mineralized bone generated at the control and test sites was significantly larger in groups Post‐IP and Pre‐IP when compared with group No‐IP, except for the test site between groups No‐IP and Post‐IP ( P <0.05). Therefore, the amount of mineralized tissue generated appeared to increase with an increase in the total IP dose. Within the limitations of this rabbit experimental model, we conclude that the daily intake of IP before or after GBR inhibits the resorption of augmented tissue and would be useful for improving the quality of newly generated bone beyond the skeletal envelope.