Growth Dynamic of Allogeneic and Autogenous Bone Grafts in a Vertical Model

Abstract

Several techniques have been proposed for vertical bone regeneration, and many of them use bone autogenous and allogeneic grafts. The purpose of this study was to compare demineralised freeze-dried bone allografts (DFDBA), fresh-frozen (FF) allografts, autogenous bone grafts to find differences between volumetric and histological quantity of bone formation and vertical bone growth dynamic. A vertical tissue regeneration bone model was performed in rabbit calvarias under general anaesthesia. Four hollow cylinders of pure titanium were screwed onto external cortical bone calvarias in eight rabbits. Each one of the cylinders was randomly filled with one intervention: DFDBA, FF, autogenous bone, or left to be filled with blood clot (BC) as control. Allogeneic grafts were obtained from a ninth animal following international standardised protocols for the harvesting, processing, and cryopreservation of allografts. Autogenous graft was obtained from the host femur scraping before adapting hollow cylinders. Animals were euthanized at 13 weeks. Vertical volume was calculated after probe device measurements of the new formed tissue inside the cylinders and after titanium cylinders were removed. Histomorphometry and fluorochrome staining were used to analyse quantity and dynamic of bone formation, respectively. Results showed that DFDBA and fresh-frozen bone improved the velocity and the quantity of bone deposition in distant portions of the basal plane of grafting. Remaining material in allograft groups was more intense than in autogenous group. Both allografts can be indicated as reliable alternatives for volume gain and vertical bone augmentation.

Fabrication of piezoelectric porous BaTiO3 scaffold to repair large segmental bone defect in sheep

“…Bone grafts, whether autologous or allogeneic, can restore the mechanical support and physiological environment of bone defect sites. 7 However, they increase the risk of postoperative infection or rejection.…”

Homogenous Bone Grafts as an Alternative in Oral Rehabilitation Treatments with Dental Implants

“…During the course of the treatment, it was observed that computed tomography scans of approximately six months after the graft showed relevant characteristics, such as a marked neoformation with control of bone tissue behavior. Added to this, is not only the migration of viable bone cells to the recipient bed, but also the ability to act as a framework for neoformation in the grafted surgical bed (Bettin et al;Hardin;Logeart-Avramoglou et al;Kim et al;Lima et al, 2017;Aljohani et al;Lima et al, 2018a). Therefore, there was a cell migration with proliferation of blood vessels into the biomaterial (Logeart-Avramoglou et al;Begam et al;Lima et al, 2017;Moussa & Dym;Matos et al, 2019).…”

“…Numerous researches are carried out in order to affirm which the ideal implant material would be, to replace the autogenous graft (Bettin et al;Hardin;Logeart-Avramoglou et al;Begam et al;Kim et al;Lima et al, 2017;Santos et al;Windhager et al;Aljohani et al;Lima et al, 2018b;Proêza et al;Moussa & Dym). However, this is still one of the greatest challenges of implantology, due to the lack of an ideal graft material; for that, this type of material must follow seven principles: 1) unlimited supply without compromising the donor area; 2) promote osteogenesis; 3) not showing an immune response from the host; 4) revascularize quickly; 5) stimulate osteoinduction; 6) promote osteoconduction; 7) be completely replaced by bone in quantity and quality similar to that of the host (Bettin et al;Hardin;Logeart-Avramoglou et al;Pinto et al;Tolstunov, 2009;Kim et al;Lima et al, 2017;Windhager et al;Aljohani et al;Jo et al, 2018;Lima et al, 2018a;Prando et al, 2018;Albanese et al, 2019;Moussa & Dym;Matos et al, 2019).…”

“…Bone grafts are biomaterials and can originate from several sources; there are currently a large number of biomaterials available for these treatments, classified as: Autograft: when it comes from the individual; Allograft: when obtained from another individual of the same species; Isogenic: from different individuals, but of the same species and genetically identical to the individual receiving the graft (identical twins or therapeutic cloning); Alloplast: can be of metallic, ceramic or polymeric nature; Xenograft: obtained from individuals of different species of the recipient (for example, bovine) (Begam et al;Lima et al, 2017Lima et al, , 2018aMatos et al, 2019).…”

“…Currently, when bone replacement is needed, different options can be used by the dental surgeon (Jesus-Garcia & Feofiloff, 1996). However, the first choice for grafting is autogenous bone, as it is the gold standard and has a high capacity to produce bone, easy bone remodeling, maintenance of immature bone over time, stabilization of implants, has low antigenicity, minimal risk of infection and easy availability (Pinto et al, 2007;Lima et al, 2018a). These, in turn, can be obtained from different regions of the body, the crest of the iliac bone (spongy bone marrow grafts), the skullcap, tibia, ribs and mandible (especially for smaller grafts) the areas election donors; obtaining autografts is sometimes coated with some morbidity (Jesus-Garcia & Feofiloff).…”