Premium
Effect of allogeneic freeze‐dried demineralized bone matrix on regeneration of alveolar bone and periodontal attachment in dogs
Author(s) -
Caplanis Nicholas,
Lee Michael B.,
Zimmerman Grenith J.,
Selvig Knut A.,
Wikesjö Ulf M.E.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02373.x
Subject(s) - cementum , dental alveolus , demineralized bone matrix , connective tissue , dbm , regeneration (biology) , dentistry , medicine , beagle , buccal administration , implant , surgery , pathology , materials science , biology , amplifier , optoelectronics , cmos , dentin , microbiology and biotechnology
. This split‐mouth study was designed to evaluate regeneration of alveolar bone and periodontal attachment following implantation of allogeneic. freeze‐dried, demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Buccal fenestration defects (6×4 mm) were created on the maxillary canine teeth in 6 beagle dogs. DBM was implanted into one randomly selected defect in each animal. The contralateral defect served as surgical control. Tissue blocks were harvested following a 4‐week healing interval and prepared for histometric analysis. DBM was discernible in all implanted defects with limited evidence of bone metabolic activity. The DBM particles appeared invested within a dense connective tissue, often in close contact to the instrumented root. Fenestration defect height averaged 3.8±0.1 and 3.7±0.3mm, total bone regeneration 0.9±0.9 and 0.4±1.2 mm, and total cementum regeneration 2.3±1.5 and 0.6±0.7 mm for DBM and control defects, respectively. Differences with regards to cementum regeneration were statistically significant ( p =0.03). In summary, the results of this study suggest that DBM implants may enhance cementum regeneration in this defect model, and that they have no apparent effect on alveolar bone regeneration. Enhanced cementum regeneration may be possibly be explained by provisions for guided tissue regeneration from the implant suppressing a significant influence of the gingival connective tissue on the healing process. Moreover, a 4‐week healing interval appears insufficient for turnover of DBM.