Premium
Growth/differentiation factor‐5 significantly enhances periodontal wound healing/regeneration compared with platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB in dogs
Author(s) -
Kwon HyukRak,
Wikesjö Ulf M. E.,
Park JungChul,
Kim YoungTaek,
Bastone Patrizia,
Pippig Susanne D.,
Kim ChongKwan
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.2010.01576.x
Subject(s) - cementum , wound healing , regeneration (biology) , medicine , dentistry , beagle , growth factor , surgery , biology , microbiology and biotechnology , receptor , dentin
Kwon H‐R, Wikesjö UME, Park J‐C, Kim Y‐T, Bastone P, Pippig SD, Kim C‐K. Growth/differentiation factor‐5 significantly enhances periodontal wound healing/regeneration compared with platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 739‐746 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01576.x . Abstract Objective: Recombinant human growth/differentiation factor‐5 (rhGDF‐5) in a particulate β ‐tricalcium phosphate ( β ‐TCP) carrier is being evaluated to support periodontal regeneration. The objective of this study was to evaluate periodontal wound healing/regeneration following an established clinical (benchmark) protocol including surgical implantation of rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP in comparison with that following implantation of recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB (rhPDGF) combined with a particulate β ‐TCP biomaterial using an established canine defect model. Materials and Methods: Bilateral, 4 × 5 mm (width × depth), one‐wall, critical‐size, intrabony periodontal defects were surgically created at the mandibular second and fourth pre‐molar teeth in five adult Beagle dogs. Defect sites were randomized to receive rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP or the rhPDGF construct followed by wound closure for primary intention healing. The animals were sacrificed following an 8‐week healing interval for histological and histometric examination. Results: Clinical healing was generally uneventful. Sites receiving rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP exhibited a significantly enhanced cementum formation compared with sites receiving the rhPDGF construct, averaging (±SD) 4.49±0.48 versus 2.72±0.91 mm ( p <0.001). Similarly, bone regeneration height and area were significantly enhanced at sites receiving rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP versus that of the rhPDGF construct averaging, 3.08±0.74 versus 1.29±0.78 mm ( p <0.001) and 6.03±1.28 versus 2.98±2.61 mm 2 ( p <0.01), respectively. Cementum regeneration included cellular/acellular mixed (extrinsic/intrinsic) fibre cementum at sites receiving rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP; sites receiving the rhPDGF/ β ‐TCP showed a pre‐dominantly acellular cementum. Newly formed cementum generally extended above the adjoining alveolar bone. Both protocols displayed β ‐TCP residues apparently undergoing resorption. Application of both materials appears safe, as they were associated with limited, if any, adverse events. Conclusion: rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP shows a significant potential to support/accelerate periodontal wound healing/regeneration. Application of rhGDF‐5/ β ‐TCP appears safe and should be further evaluated in human clinical trials.