Premium
Bone Regeneration Around Implants in the Canine Mandible With Cultured Fibroblasts in Polyglactin Mesh
Author(s) -
Sparks Michael S.,
Kerns David G.,
Wilson Thomas G.,
Hallmon William W.,
Spears Robert,
Haghighat Nasser
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2007.060056
Subject(s) - implant , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , dentistry , coronal plane , osseointegration , materials science , osteotomy , regeneration (biology) , biomedical engineering , medicine , anatomy , surgery , biology , botany , genus , microbiology and biotechnology
Background: Human fibroblast‐derived dermal substitute (HFDDS) is a tissue‐engineered material that consists of polyglactin mesh seeded with cultured fibroblasts. Cultured fibroblasts are not as differentiated as tissue fibroblasts and retain the ability to differentiate into other cells types. HFDDS also is capable of stimulating angiogenesis and wound healing. The purpose of this study was to attempt to evaluate the effects of HFDDS on guided bone regeneration at sites with 1.5‐mm peri‐implant defects in the canine mandible. Methods: Fifty sand‐blasted acid‐etched test implants were placed into the edentulous areas of mandibular ridges of five American foxhounds. Each site had a standardized 1.5‐mm circumferential peri‐implant defect in the coronal half of the implant, created by a specialized drill at the time of osteotomy. In each canine two implants received no treatment of the defects, four implants were treated with polyglactin mesh (carrier only) wrapped around the circumference of the defect wall, and four implants were treated with HFDDS placed in a similar fashion to the mesh. Implant sites healed submerged for 10 weeks, at which time sacrifice took place and sections were prepared, processed, and analyzed histomorphometrically. Results: The mean distance from the top of the fixture to the first point of bone–implant contact was 2.20 mm, 2.25 mm, and 2.60 mm for the HFDDS, carrier, and control sites, respectively ( P = 0.202). Overall mean percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) in the defects was 32.8%, 31.0%, and 22.8% for the HFDDS, carrier, and control groups, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant, but approached statistical significance for the control group compared to HFDDS and carrier ( P = 0.057). Overall mean bone fill in the defects calculated histometrically was 36.0%, 35.8%, and 33.9% for the HFDDS, carrier, and control groups, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant. Sites with dehiscence at the time of implant placement had significantly greater distance to first bone–implant contact ( P = 0.002), a smaller percentage of BIC ( P = 0.006), and significantly less bone fill ( P = 0.006) in the defects. It was consistently found that when dehiscence occurred on the buccal side of the implant, the outcomes for all parameters measured were significantly inferior on the lingual side as well. Factorial analysis, which grouped outcomes by dehiscence categories (none, partial, or full dehiscence), revealed that with intact defects without dehiscence, HFDDS had less bone fill compared to the carrier. However, in defects with partial or full dehiscence, HFDDS had more bone fill compared to carrier sites. These differences were statistically significant ( P = 0.034). Conclusions: In intact sites without dehiscence, the presence of cultured fibroblasts in 1.5‐mm–wide peri‐implant defects did not significantly enhance bone regeneration compared to the carrier, polyglactin mesh. However, sites with partial or full dehiscence treated with HFDDS had significantly greater bone fill compared to the carrier ( P = 0.034). When dehiscence occurs during immediate implant placement on narrow ridges without the use of membranes, bone regeneration tends to be inferior on the side of the dehiscence as well as the opposite side of the implant.