Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Biology of sinus floor augmentation with an autograft versus a bone graft substitute in a preclinical in vivo experimental model.
Coyac, Benjamin R; Wu, Meagan; Bahat, Daniel J; Wolf, Benjamin J; Helms, Jill A.
  • Coyac BR; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Wu M; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Bahat DJ; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Wolf BJ; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Helms JA; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 32(8): 916-927, 2021 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34031931
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Compared to autografts, bone graft substitutes are slower to consolidate. If we understood why, this might open strategies to accelerate new bone formation and thus shorten the time to implant placement. In this study, we aimed at comparing autologous bone graft with a bovine bone graft substitute in a preclinical sinus lift model. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

The mouse posterior paranasal sinus served as a recipient site for grafting. Autograft from the oral cavity was compared against bone graft substitute using molecular, cellular, and histological analyses conducted on post-grafting days (PSD) 0, 9, 18, and 120.

RESULTS:

Either autografts or bone graft substitutes were positioned on the sinus floor and remained in situ throughout the study. At the time of grafting and until day 9, bone graft substitutes were devoid of cells and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity while autografts were comprised of viable cells and showed strong ALP (mineralization) activity. Consequently, new bone formed faster in autografts compared to bone graft substitutes (140.21 ± 41.21 µm vs. 41.70 ± 10.09 µm, respectively, PSD9, p = .0143). By PSD18, osteogenesis was evident in autografted and xenografted sites. Osteoclasts identified by tartrate resistant acid phosphatase attached to, but did not resorb the bone graft substitute matrix. Autograft matrix, however, underwent extensive resorption. Transgenic mice revealed that Wnt-responsive osteoprogenitor cells originated primarily from the internal periosteum of the maxillary bone, and not from the Schneiderian membrane.

CONCLUSION:

Autografts produce new bone sooner, but bovine bone graft substitutes eventually consolidate and then resist resorption. Enhancing osteoprogenitor cell recruitment to a bone graft substitute constitutes a viable strategy for accelerating bone formation in a sinus lift procedure.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sustitutos de Huesos / Elevación del Piso del Seno Maxilar Límite: Animals Idioma: En Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sustitutos de Huesos / Elevación del Piso del Seno Maxilar Límite: Animals Idioma: En Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article