Premium
Evaluation of implants coated with rhBMP‐2 using two different coating strategies: a critical‐size supraalveolar peri‐implant defect study in dogs
Author(s) -
Lee Jaebum,
Decker John F.,
Polimeni Giuseppe,
Cortella Carlo Alberto,
Rohrer Michael D.,
Wozney John M.,
Hall Jan,
Susin Cristiano,
Wikesjö Ulf M. E.
Publication year - 2010
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.2010.01557.x
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , bone formation , osseointegration , coronal plane , medicine , surgery , anatomy
Lee J, Decker JF, Polimeni G, Cortella CA, Rohrer MD, Wozney JM, Hall J, Susin C, Wikesjö UME. Evaluation of implants coated with rhBMP‐2 using two different coating strategies: a critical‐size supraalveolar peri‐implant defect study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 582–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01557.x. Abstract Background: Implants coated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (rhBMP‐2) induce relevant bone formation but also resident bone remodelling. Objectives: To compare the effect of implants fully or partially coated with rhBMP‐2 on new bone formation and resident bone remodelling. Materials and Methods: Twelve, male, adult, Hound Labrador mongrel dogs were used. Critical‐size, supraalveolar, peri‐implant defects received titanium porous oxide surface implants coated in their most coronal aspect with rhBMP‐2 (coronal‐load/six animals) or by immersion of the entire implant in an rhBMP‐2 solution (soak‐load/six animals) for a total of 30 μ g rhBMP‐2/implant. All implants were air‐dried. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks for histometric evaluation. Results: Clinical healing was uneventful. Supraalveolar bone formation was not significantly affected by the rhBMP‐2 application protocol. New bone height and area averaged (± SE) 3.4 ± 0.2 versus 3.5 ± 0.4 mm and 2.6 ± 0.4 versus 2.5 ± 0.7 mm 2 for coronal‐load and soak‐load implants, respectively ( p >0.05). The corresponding bone density and bone–implant contact (BIC) recordings averaged 38.0 ± 3.8% versus 34.4 ± 5.6% and 25.0 ± 3.8% versus 31.2 ± 3.3% ( p >0.05). In contrast, resident bone remodelling was significantly influenced by the rhBMP‐2 application protocol. Bone density outside the implants threads averaged 74.7 ± 3.8% and 50.8 ± 4.1% for coronal‐load and soak‐load implants, respectively ( p <0.05); bone density within the thread area averaged 51.8 ± 1.2% and 37.8 ± 2.9%, and BIC 70.1 ± 6.7% and 43.3 ± 3.9% ( p <0.05). Conclusion: Local application of rhBMP‐2 appears to be a viable technology to support local bone formation and osseointegration. Coronal‐load implants obviate resident bone remodelling without compromising new bone formation.