Use of a Collagen Membrane Loaded With Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 With Collagen‐Binding Domain for Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration

Lai, Chunhua; Zhou, Lei; Wang, Zhonglei; Lu, Hongxiang; Gao, Yan

doi:10.1902/jop.2012.120415

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In vivo animal experiments have compared the bone regenerative effects of native membranes and membranes immobilized or loaded with recombinant human BMP‐2 (rhBMP‐2) (Shim et al., ), rhBMP‐2 with a collagen‐binding domain (Lai, Zhou, Wang, Lu, & Gao, ), BMP‐7 (Jo et al., ), a combination of BMP‐2 and BMP‐7 (Jo et al., ), bFGF/FGF‐2 (Lee et al., ), FGF‐2 (Hong et al., ), PDGF (Park, Ku, Chung, & Lee, ) and bone‐forming peptide‐1 (BFP1) (Lee et al., ) (a peptide sequence from the immature region of BMP‐7) (Kim et al., ) (examples are provided in Table ). Most experimental in vivo studies have been performed with degradable membranes/materials in rodent calvarial defects.…”

Section: Results Of the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most experimental in vivo studies have been performed with degradable membranes/materials in rodent calvarial defects. Compared with native membranes, membranes immobilized or loaded with these different growth factors/peptides demonstrate increased in vivo bone regeneration (Hong et al., ; Jo et al., ; Lai et al., ; Lee et al., , ; Park et al., ; Shim et al., ) (Table ). Moreover, a polycaprolactone (PCL)/gelatin membrane functionalized with CXCL12/SDF‐1α, which stimulated bone marrow stromal cell (BMSC) chemotaxis in vitro , promoted a sixfold increase in bone formation compared to that afforded by the native membrane after 8 weeks in vivo (Ji et al., ).…”

Section: Results Of the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect?

Omar

Elgali

Dahlin

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

170

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To review the knowledge on the mechanisms controlling membrane–host interactions in guided bone regeneration ( GBR ) and investigate the possible role of GBR membranes as bioactive compartments in addition to their established role as barriers. Materials and Methods A narrative review was utilized based on in vitro , in vivo and available clinical studies on the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying GBR and the possible bioactive role of membranes. Results Emerging data demonstrate that the membrane contributes bioactively to the regeneration of underlying defects. The cellular and molecular activities in the membrane are intimately linked to the promoted bone regeneration in the underlying defect. Along with the native bioactivity of GBR membranes, incorporating growth factors and cells in membranes or with graft materials may augment the regenerative processes in underlying defects. Conclusion In parallel with its barrier function, the membrane plays an active role in hosting and modulating the molecular activities of the membrane‐associated cells during GBR . The biological events in the membrane are linked to the bone regenerative and remodelling processes in the underlying defect. Furthermore, the bone‐promoting environments in the two compartments can likely be boosted by strategies targeting both material aspects of the membrane and host tissue responses.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results Of the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect?

Omar

Elgali

Dahlin

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

170

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, experimental studies suggested that, although different growth factors (namely PDGF‐BB, FGF‐2, VEGF) may positively influence bone formation, BMP‐2 seems the most effective for the regeneration of cranial and maxillofacial defects and de novo bone formation, regardless of the carrier adopted. Remarkably, some experimental studies suggested that it might enhance GBR‐induced bone regeneration (Du et al., ; Huang et al., ) and de novo bone formation (Lai et al., ; Lee et al., ). rhBMP‐2 also showed to support post‐extraction alveolar bone regeneration and ridge augmentation in chronic and combined acute‐chronic defects, but while ACS could be successfully used as a carrier for inlay purposes, space‐providing materials should be preferred for onlay purposes (Barboza et al., , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of bioactive factors to enhance bone regeneration: A narrative review

Donos

Dereka

Calciolari

2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim This review critically appraises the available knowledge on the pre‐clinical and clinical use of bioactive factors for bone regeneration in the cranial and maxillofacial area. Materials and Methods The use of growth factors, amelogenins and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) for bone regeneration was reviewed in a systematic manner. More specifically, pre‐clinical and clinical studies on ridge preservation, alveolar ridge augmentation, regeneration of peri‐implant defects and sinus augmentation models were considered. Results Amongst different bioactive factors, the highest pre‐clinical and clinical evidence of a positive effect on bone formation is associated with rhBMP‐2 and the lowest with amelogenins. While APCs seem to accelerate clinical healing and reduce postoperative discomfort, there is insufficient and contrasting evidence of a significant effect on hard tissue regeneration for the different clinical applications. Conclusions Although there is increasing evidence that bioactive factors might enhance the bone regeneration process, the great heterogeneity of the available studies and the limited number of RCTs do not allow to draw robust conclusions. Issues that still need to be investigated include the optimal carriers for bioactive agents (direct vs. indirect), the dosage, the timing of administration, as well as the possibility of combining different agents to promote synergistic effects.

show abstract

“…The other main difference between these two studies-apart from the healing period-was in the type of carrier material used. Various carrier materials have been used for rhBMP-2 [25][26][27]. It was speculated that using a CM as a carrier for rhBMP-2 could enhance the osteoinductivity of the periosteum due to the close proximity of the membrane and the periosteum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone regeneration of peri-implant defects using a collagen membrane as a carrier for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

Yookyung¹

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is designed to determine the effect of collagen membrane (CM) soaked with bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) for the treatment of peri-implant dehiscence defects. Material and Methods. Three treatment groups were allocated at each defect in 5 dogs: (i) collagenated synthetic bone (OC) and CM soaked with rhBMP-2 (BMP group), (ii) OC and CM soaked with saline (nonBMP group), and (iii) no further treatment (control group). Titanium pins were used to stabilize the membranes in two dogs. Radiographic and histomorphometric analyses were performed 4 weeks later. Results. The median augmented volumes were 4.27 mm 3 , 6.24 mm 3 , and 2.75 mm 3 in the BMP, nonBMP, and control groups, respectively; the corresponding median first bone-toimplant contact (fBIC) distances were 3.25 mm, 3.08 mm, and 2.56 mm (> 0.05). The placement of pins (with the BMP and nonBMP groups pooled) significantly improved bone regeneration: the augmented volumes were 17.60 mm 3 with pins and 3.68 mm 3 without pins (= 0.024), with corresponding fBIC distances of 2.25 mm and 3.31 mm, respectively (< 0.001). Conclusions. The addition of rhBMP-2 to CM failed to improve bone regeneration of peri-implant dehiscence defects compared to using an unsoaked CM after 4 weeks. However, the stabilization of CMs using pins positively influenced the outcomes.

show abstract

Use of a Collagen Membrane Loaded With Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 With Collagen‐Binding Domain for Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration

Abstract: The present study demonstrates that CMs loaded with small doses of rhBMP-2/CBD induce new bone formation not only from the surface of the native bone, but also from the superficial structures. The augmented new bone, therefore, is improved in both quantity and quality.

Cited by 17 publications

References 42 publications

Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect?

Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect?

The use of bioactive factors to enhance bone regeneration: A narrative review

Bone regeneration of peri-implant defects using a collagen membrane as a carrier for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About