Bone remodeling and mechanobiology around implants: Insights from small animal imaging

Abstract

Anchorage of orthopedic implants depends on the interfacial bonding between the implant and the host bone as well as on the mass and microstructure of peri-implant bone, with all these factors being continuously regulated by the biological process of bone (re)modeling. In osteoporotic bone, implant integration may be jeopardized not only by lower peri-implant bone quality but also by reduced intrinsic regeneration ability. The first aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the influence of osteoporosis on bone regeneration post-implantation. Mechanical stimulation can trigger bone formation and inhibit bone resorption; thus, judicious administration of mechanical loading can be used as an effective non-pharmacological treatment to enhance implant anchorage. Our second aim is to report recent achievements on the application of external mechanical stimulation to improve the quantity of periimplant bone. The review focuses on peri-implant bone changes in osteoporotic conditions and following mechanical loading, prevalently using small animals and in vivo monitoring approaches. We intend to demonstrate the necessity to reveal new biological information on peri-implant bone mechanobiology to better target implant anchorage and fracture fixation in osteoporotic conditions. ß

Novel standardized massive bone defect model in rats employing an internal eight‐hole stainless steel plate for bone tissue engineering

“…The massive femoral bone defect model in rats is different from the rabbit radius critical bone defect model, due to the rat model is a weight‐bearing bone defect model, so biomechanical study can be done through it. (Li & Muller, ; Zhang & Yang, ). This model provides defect region with controllable dynamic stimulation and also enlighten us the mechanism of mechanical signal transmission and the relationship between physiological and mechanical‐induced regeneration.…”

The Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields to Promote Bone Responses to Biomaterials In Vitro and In Vivo

“…In all these clinical situations the challenge biomaterials must face is to integrate in the host and promote bone healing along its surfaces [ 4 ], albeit with noticeable differences. Most scaffolds are made of resorbable materials, because common opinion dictates that scaffolds should progressively be replaced by native tissue [ 5 ], whereas prostheses are mostly permanent implants and their purpose is to last and function as long as possible in patients, usually while withstanding relevant mechanical forces in the process [ 6 ]. Thus, most scaffolds currently used in bone are made of bioceramics, predominantly calcium phosphates, because of their chemical similarity to the inorganic matrix of bone [ 7 ], which makes them osteoconductive [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Histomorphometric Analysis of the Alveolar Bone for Two Weeks after Bone Morphogenetic Protein Transfer

“…Therefore, numerous studies have investigated ways to successfully engineer new bone that is efficient and safe for clinical therapy [3]. However, because alveolar bone is in a constant state of remodeling-more so than most other bony regions-it can be difficult to evaluate whether a method has been successful in regenerating bone at the intended site [4][5][6]. Moreover, bone and teeth are generally more difficult to handle than other types of tissues, requiring lengthy decalcification procedures before the specimens can be assessed [7].…”