Premium
Periodontal repair in dogs: guided tissue regeneration enhances bone formation in sites implanted with a coral‐derived calcium carbonate biomaterial
Author(s) -
Koo KiTae,
Polimeni Giuseppe,
Qahash Mohammed,
Kim Chong Kwan,
Wikesjö Ulf ME
Publication year - 2005
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.2004.00632.x
Subject(s) - biomaterial , dentistry , connective tissue , cementum , beagle , medicine , dental alveolus , bone formation , bone tissue , regeneration (biology) , implant , bone healing , pathology , surgery , biomedical engineering , dentin , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Background: Previous studies suggest that a bioresorbable calcium carbonate coral implant (CI) supports space provision and bone formation for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). However, it could not be discerned whether observed effects were because of GTR or whether the CI possessed osteoconductive properties enhancing bone formation. The objective of this study was to evaluate bone formation associated with the CI biomaterial in the presence and absence of provisions for GTR. Methods: Routine, critical size, 6 mm, supra‐alveolar periodontal defects were created in 12 young adult Beagle dogs. Five animals received the CI alone (Biocoral® 1000). Seven animals received the CI/GTR combination using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier (GORE‐TEX® Regenerative Material). The animals were euthanized at 4 weeks postsurgery and tissue blocks of the experimental sites were collected and processed for histometric analysis. Results: Clinical healing was uneventful. The histopathologic and histometric analysis revealed significantly increased bone formation (height and area) in sites receiving the CI/GTR combination compared with CI alone (2.3±0.6 versus 1.2±0.9 mm; and 3.1±0.8 versus 1.2±1.1 mm 2 ; p <0.05). The CI biomaterial appeared to be mostly unassociated with new bone formation; the CI particles were observed sequestered in newly formed bone, fibrovascular marrow, and in the supra‐alveolar connective tissue. Cementum formation was limited and observed in few sites for both treatment protocols. Conclusion: While GTR promoted new bone formation, the CI contributed limited, if any, osteoconductive effects.