Premium
Bone regeneration using a synthetic matrix containing enamel matrix derivate
Author(s) -
Schneider David,
Weber Franz E.,
Hämmerle Christoph H. F.,
Feloutzis Andreas,
Jung Ronald E.
Publication year - 2011
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.1600-0501.2010.01985.x
Subject(s) - calvaria , dentistry , matrix (chemical analysis) , x ray microtomography , chemistry , biomedical engineering , in vivo , enamel paint , medicine , in vitro , chromatography , biology , biochemistry , radiology , microbiology and biotechnology
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to test whether the delivery of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) via synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐based hydrogels with and without RGD sequences enhances bone formation in vivo . Material and methods: In each of 10 rabbits, four titanium cylinders were placed on the external cortical bones of their calvaria. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: One of the four cylinders was left empty (control), the other three were filled with a combination of PEG matrix with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) granules and EMD in a concentration of 100 μg/ml (test 1) or 500 μg/ml (test 2) or 500 μg/ml and RGD peptide (test 3). After 8 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and ground sections were obtained for histological analysis. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied ( P <0.05). Results: The histomorphometric analysis revealed a statistically larger area fraction of newly formed bone in the EMD 500/RGD group (54.8±14.5%) compared with the control group (28.7±10.3%) and the EMD 500 group (31.2±14.1%) and non‐significantly higher area fraction compared with the EMD 100 group (38.2±10.4%). The percentage of mineralized bone showed no statistically significant differences among the four groups. The mean percentage of mineralized bone was 13.6±3.3% in the control group, 14.2±5.8% in the EMD 100 group, 11.69±5.9% in the EMD 500 group and 15.66±5.2% in the EMD 500/RGD group. No statistically significant difference regarding the bone‐to‐graft contact between the EMD 100 group (23±15.7%), the EMD 500 group (22.2±14.6%) and the EMD 500/RGD group (21.6±8.8%) was observed. Conclusions: The combination of a PEG matrix containing EMD with HA/TCP granules had no effect on the formation of mineralized bone tissue in rabbit calvaria. The addition of RGD peptide to the PEG/EMD 500 combination increased the area fraction of newly formed bone compared with the other treatment groups. Further studies are indicated to study a possible synergistic effect of EMD and RGD. To cite this article:
Schneider D, Weber FE, Hämmerle CHF, Feloutzis A, Jung RE. Bone regeneration using a synthetic matrix containing enamel matrix derivate
Clin. Oral Impl. Res 22 , 2011; 214–222.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01985.x