Evaluation of custom made xenogenic bone grafts in mandibular alveolar ridge augmentation versus particulate bone graft with titanium mesh

Abstract

Aim: This study was to evaluate clinically and radiographically the volume changes of alveolar ridge grafting using customized xenogenic bone graft. Materials and Methods: A total of 12 patients with mandibular horizontal and vertical alveolar ridge defects ≥ 3 mm were selected. They were divided into 2 groups: Group I (Test Group) included 6 patients in which mandibular alveolar ridges were reconstructed with customized Xenogenic bone graft Smartbone (IBI S.A., Switzerland). Group II (Control Group) included 6 patients in which mandibular alveolar ridges were reconstructed with particulate Xenogenic bone (Smart bone, IBI S.A., Switzerland) grafting to posterior mandibular ridge with titanium mesh was performed. Volume analysis of the changes in alveolar ridge in both Groups were obtained before and four months after the procedure using CBCT. Densitometric analysis of the Postoperative bone formed and compared with native bone. . Results: Four months postoperatively. Measurements made on cone-beam computerized tomograms, four months postoperative showed significance increase in bone volume by 40 % in the area of newly formed bone in Group I (Customized bone) compared with 23% in Control Group. Statistical significant changes was found in the density of newly formed bone four months post-operatively in both Groups, however there was no significant difference in bone density postoperatively between Group I (customized Bone) and Group II (Control). Conclusion:According to the results, the treatment of defective alveolar ridge augmentation of the mandibular ridge with customized xenogenic bone graft Smartbone (IBI S.A., Switzerland) is successful and produces results consistent with the control Group.

Decellularized xenografts in regenerative medicine: From processing to clinical application

“…Despite their high availability, low cost and good mechanical and osteoinductive properties, only a few bone xenografts are available, which have shown limited positive clinical results, 189,190 and as a result, they are rarely employed in orthopaedics 191 . Nonetheless, advances in materials sciences and tissue engineering have resulted in the development of composite materials combining xenogeneic mineral matrix, synthetic and/or natural polymers, which have been tested positively in clinical trials 192‐194 …”

The Few Who Made It: Commercially and Clinically Successful Innovative Bone Grafts

“…In the case of SmartBone ® , such a path resulted in a fully positively characterized material in vitro ( Pertici et al, 2014 , 2015 ), in vivo ( Pertici et al, 2015 ) and in clinical trials ( Abuelnaga et al, 2018 ; Ferracini et al, 2019 ), ultimately granting device certification (i.e., CE marking), which was complemented with a post-marketing surveillance in its clinical applications related to bone regeneration in various skeletal disorders. Many other bio-hybrid composites are following the same path with positive results in vitro and in vivo ( Ceccarelli et al, 2017 ) and in preliminary clinical trials, like in the case of hydroxyapatite/collagen scaffolds ( Kon et al, 2011 ).…”

Simulated Performance of a Xenohybrid Bone Graft (SmartBone®) in the Treatment of Acetabular Prosthetic Reconstruction

“…As a matter of fact, previous studies [38][39][40] have already highlighted the ability of the material to be osteoconductive and resorbable, supporting the formation of new bone via remodeling only a few months after grafting [39]. Initially applied successfully to over tens of thousands of patients in dental and maxillofacial clinical applications [39], it has now been positively extended to orthopedic cases, both in standard shapes and with custom-made solutions [41][42][43][44][45]. It has always shown appropriate integration and remodeling, combined with remarkable mechanical resistance over time.…”

“…It has always shown appropriate integration and remodeling, combined with remarkable mechanical resistance over time. Indeed, a 2018 study reported a significant bone volume increase of 40% four months postop [42]. A study from 2019 showed an increment of 16 cc of new bone on the treated area of an important craniofacial district [46], and a study in traumatology showed evidence of not only bone regeneration but also anatomically selective remodeling [45].…”