Vertical Bone Augmentation Using Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein, Mineralized Bone Allograft, and Titanium Mesh: A Retrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Misch, Craig M.; Jensen, Ole T.; Pikos, Michael A.; Malmquist, Jay

doi:10.11607/jomi.3977

Cited by 40 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since first described in 1959 by Hurley et al, GBR technique has been widely applied for local alveolar ridge defects and has achieved predictable results . Bone gain values reported in most studies approximately was 2‐6 mm in vertical dimension and 3‐5 mm in horizontal dimension . Although some exceptional results were reported, for example, Louis et al reported a mean vertical bone gain up to 13.7 mm with 4 mm horizontal bone gain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study

Zhang

Cai

2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To our acknowledgment, there were limited clinical studies about the guided bone regeneration (GBR) for both vertical and horizontal augmentation at the same time using titanium mesh (Ti‐mesh) with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone. Meanwhile, studies that specially evaluate resorption and long‐term stability of the augmented labial bone after loading were also rare. Therefore, this study introduced a newly designed L‐shaped Ti‐mesh used for GBR with simultaneous implant placement and evaluated the bone augmentation effectiveness, resorption, and long‐term stability of peri‐implant bone with this newly designed L‐shaped Ti‐mesh. Materials and Methods Twelve patients (16 implants) who had underwent a GBR procedure using L‐shaped Ti‐mesh with simultaneous implants placement were reviewed in this study. Complications, implant success, and survival rate were recorded and calculated. Furthermore, the bone gain values, labial bone resorption, and remaining labial bone volume were measured by cone beam CT (CBCT) during 13‐41 months follow‐up. Results After GBR using L‐shaped Ti‐mesh, the average bone gain values were 3.61 ± 1.50 mm vertically and 3.10 ± 2.06 mm horizontally. The implant success and surviving rate were 93.75% and 100%, respectively during the longest 41 months follow‐up. The vertical labial bone resorption was −0.81 ± 1.00 mm, horizontal labial bone resorption was −0.13 ± 1.19 mm at the top of the implants. The remaining labial bone thickness was 2.24 ± 1.29 mm at the top of the implants and 2.86 ± 1.08 mm at the 2 mm apically from the implant tops after loading. There was still 1.13 ± 1.18 mm vertical labial bone remaining above the top of implants for approximately 87.5% sites. Conclusions GBR using L‐shaped Ti‐mesh with simultaneous implant placement (one‐step surgery) in the esthetic zone could achieve predictable results for vertical and horizontal bone augmentation at the same time. Meanwhile, L‐shaped Ti‐mesh could preferably reconstruct and reduce the labial bone resorption to achieve long‐term esthetics. This newly designed L‐shaped Ti‐mesh may offer predictable and excellent outcomes for the implant restoration in the esthetic zone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study

Zhang

Cai

2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an alternative study using BMP‐7 (OP‐1) in a posterolateral lumber arthrodesis, addition of the BMP to the bone allograft led to significantly increased bone continuity and bone mass . The concept of combining BMP‐2 and allografts may also have applications in a dental setting, where the combination was found to offer positive improvements in vertical bone gains in a vertical ridge augmentation procedure …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bioactive Coating Enhances Bone Allografts in Rat Models of Bone Formation and Critical Defect Repair

Cheng

Leblanc

Kalinina

et al. 2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone allografts are inferior to autografts for the repair of critical‐sized defects. Prior studies have suggested that bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) can be combined with allografts to produce superior healing. We created a bioactive coating on bone allografts using polycondensed deoxyribose isobutyrate ester (PDIB) polymer to deliver BMP‐2 ± the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) and tested its ability to enhance the functional utility of allografts in preclinical Wistar rat models. One ex vivo and two in vivo proof‐of‐concept studies were performed. First, PDIB was shown to be able to coat bone grafts (BGs). Second, PDIB was used to coat structural allogenic corticocancellous BG with BMP‐2 ± ZA ± hydroxyapatite (HA) microparticles and compared with PDIB‐coated grafts in a rat muscle pouch model. Next, a rat critical defect model was performed with treatment groups including (i) empty defect, (ii) BG, (iii) collagen sponge + BMP‐2, (iv) BG + PDIB/BMP‐2, and (v) BG + PDIB/BMP‐2/ZA. Key outcome measures included detection of fluorescent bone labels, microcomputed tomography (CT) quantification of bone, and radiographic healing. In the muscle pouch study, BMP‐2 did not increase net bone volume measured by microCT, however, fluorescent labeling showed large amounts of new bone. Addition of ZA increased BV by sevenfold (p < 0.01). In the critical defect model, allografts were insufficient to promote reliable union, however, union was achieved in collagen/BMP‐2 and all BG/BMP‐2 groups. Statement of clinical significance: These data support the concept that PDIB is a viable delivery method for BMP‐2 and ZA delivery to enhance the bone forming potential of allografts. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:2278–2286, 2019

show abstract

“…From a clinical point of view, the ability to place dental implants following a healing period after primary bone augmentation is considered as the main goal of the therapy (Butura & Galindo, ; Marx, Armentano, Olavarria, & Samaniego, ; Misch, Jensen, Pikos, & Malmquist, ; Ribeiro Filho et al., ). This was underlined by the outcomes of the present study, demonstrating that both treatment modalities were successful and allowed placing dental implants in all sites (except in one patient where an autogenous bone block failed).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized, controlled clinical two‐centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 or autogenous bone blocks for lateral ridge augmentation

Thoma

Payer

Jakse

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vertical Bone Augmentation Using Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein, Mineralized Bone Allograft, and Titanium Mesh: A Retrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Cited by 40 publications

References 0 publications

The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study

The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study

A Bioactive Coating Enhances Bone Allografts in Rat Models of Bone Formation and Critical Defect Repair

Randomized, controlled clinical two‐centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 or autogenous bone blocks for lateral ridge augmentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About