Biomimetic characteristics of mussel adhesive protein-loaded collagen membrane in guided bone regeneration of rabbit calvarial defects

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and barrier function of mussel adhesive protein (MAP)-loaded collagen membranes in guided bone regeneration (GBR). METHODS: Eight male New Zealand white rabbits were used. Four circular defects (diameter: 8 mm) were created in the calvarium of each animal. The defects were randomly assigned to 1) a negative control group, 2) a cyanoacrylate (CA)-loaded collagen membrane group (the CA group), 3) a MAP-loaded collagen membrane group (the MAP group), and 4) a group that received a polycaprolactone block with MAP-loaded collagen membrane (the MAP-PCL group). Specimens were harvested at 2 weeks (n=4) and 8 weeks (n=4) postoperatively for observational histology and histometric analysis. RESULTS: In the histologic analysis, MAP was completely absorbed without any byproducts. In contrast, some of the CA adhesive remained, showing an inflammatory reaction, at 8 weeks. In the MAP-PCL group, the MAP-loaded collagen membranes served as a barrier membrane despite their fast degradation in GBR. No significant difference was found in the amount of new bone between the MAP-PCL and MAP groups (1.82±0.86 mm2 and 2.60±0.65 mm2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The MAP-loaded collagen membrane functioned efficiently in this rabbit calvarial GBR model, with excellent biocompatibility. Further research is needed to assess clinical applications in defect types that are more challenging for GBR than those used in the current model.

Comparison of Vertical Magnification Ratio among Various Areas in Panoramic Radiographs

PURPOSE: The objective of the present article is to determine whether there are differences in vertical enlargement ratio among various sites within both jaws in a panoramic radiograph. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-threeimplant sites in panoramic radiographs were evaluated by two observers. Magnification ratios at various sites in both jaws were calculated and compared with each other. RESULT: The average vertical enlargement ratio in the panoramic radiograph was 1.264 and this value was larger than original ratio 1.250. Although vertical magnification ratio of maxillary molar area was higher than that of mandibular molar area, every group showed similar magnification ratio in clinical respect. CONCLUSION: Vertical magnification ratio of the maxillary molar area is statistically higher than that of the mandibular molar area in the panoramic radiograph, but it is clinically negligible.