The influence of BMP-2 and its mode of delivery on the osteoconductivity of implant surfaces during the early phase of osseointegration

Liu, Yuelian; Enggist, Lukas; Küffer, Alexander; Buser, Daniel; Hunziker, Ernst B.

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.02.003

Cited by 193 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Leknes et al 17 X (***) X (*****) 11. Liu et al 28 X (*) X (**) X (*) 12. Mueller et al 35 X (*) X (*/**/***) X (*) 13.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

“…Also, it is possible that GF activity is reduced due to the immobilization process. 9,10,15,16,19,[23][24][25]28,[35][36][37] The same considerations apply to the other growth factors used (Table III), perhaps even to a greater degree as their effects on bone growth can be expected to be generally lower than that of BMP. 38 There was only one exception to the negligible effect of GF on BIC that can be seen if only pig models are considered (see later).…”

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The inorganic surface group consisted of CaP coatings (four studies 23,[26][27][28] ) and HA coatings (four studies 22,26,29,30 ). The results of this group need to be interpreted with caution, as only studies comparing inorganic coatings to organic coatings were included in this review.…”

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -3.9-11.2, p = 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI -0.8-15.0, p = 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference -3.3 pp, 95% CI -16.5-9.9, p = 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation. Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 23.9-11.2, p 5 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI 20.8-15.0, p 5 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference 23.3 pp, 95% CI 216.5-9.9, p 5 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation.

show abstract

“…Leknes et al 17 X (***) X (*****) 11. Liu et al 28 X (*) X (**) X (*) 12. Mueller et al 35 X (*) X (*/**/***) X (*) 13.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

Section: Effect Of Coatingmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several growth factors and cytokines have also been suggested to stimulate a deposition of cells with the capacity of regenerating the desired tissue (Liu et al, 2007, Sigurdsson et al, 2001). An enhanced proliferation and differentiation of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells, osteoprogenitor cells, and preosteoblasts into osteoblasts may improve bone response and subsequently osseointegration of titanium implants (Chappard et al, 1999).…”

Section: Future Directions In Implant Surface Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implant Surface Enhancement and Osseointegration

Anil¹,

Anand²,

Alghamdi³

et al. 2011

Implant Dentistry - A Rapidly Evolving Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We know that BMPs, a class of growth factors, can promote bone formation, but they also stimulate the action of osteoclasts. Liu et al [37] evaluated the influence of BMP-2 and its mode of delivery on the osteoconductivity of dental implants with either a naked Ti surface or a calcium-phosphate-coated one. After 3 weeks, the volume of bone deposited within the osteoconductive space (peri-implant) was highest for coated and uncoated implants bearing no BMP-2, while the lowest value was achieved with coated implants bearing only adsorbed BMP-2.…”

Section: Polypeptidementioning

confidence: 99%

Research Progress on the Biochemical Modification of Titanium Implant Surface

Mao¹

2014

Med chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of BMP-2 and its mode of delivery on the osteoconductivity of implant surfaces during the early phase of osseointegration

Cited by 193 publications

References 31 publications

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

Dental Implant Surface Enhancement and Osseointegration

Research Progress on the Biochemical Modification of Titanium Implant Surface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About