LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 18 , Issue 6
November/December 2003

Pages 795–806


Placement of Autogeneic Bone Chips or Bovine Bone Mineral in Guided Bone Augmentation: A Rabbit Skull Study

Christer Slotte, DDS, PhD/Dan Lundgren, DDS, PhD/Patricia Miranda Burgos, DDS


PMID: 14696654

Purpose: Our primary aim was to use a rabbit guided bone augmentation model to evaluate whether use of autogeneic bone grafts or bovine bone mineral (BBM) combined with a space-making barrier enhances bone augmentation compared with a barrier alone. Materials and Methods: Sixteen rabbits were studied. In each rabbit, 2 titanium cylinders, each with 1 titanium lid, were placed subcutaneously in perforated slits made in the cortical bones, with their open ends facing the parietal bones. One cylinder was left empty and the other was filled with either autogeneic skull bone chips or BBM. Bone labels were injected after 4 and 11 weeks. After 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed to obtain ground sections for histology and histomorphometry. Results: Significantly more tissue was augmented in the 2 test groups than in the control group. Most of the autografts were resorbed, leaving only minute amounts in the upper third of the cylinders. Slender new bone trabeculae were distributed mainly from the contiguous bone plate that had no contact with the remaining graft material. In the BBM group, most of the BBM remained evenly distributed in the cylinder. In the upper third of the cylinder, the BBM was surrounded by soft connective tissue, while in the lower two thirds, mainly mineralized bone enclosed the BBM. Equal amounts of mineralized bone were found in both test groups. Comparisons of contact between bone and BBM on one hand and bone and bone cylinder wall on the other revealed that the greatest bone contact was with the BBM in the lower third of the cylinder. In the middle and upper third of the cylinder, bone-BBM contact and bone–cylinder wall contact were similar. Fluorescent label intensity was higher in the autograft group than in the BBM group. In all 3 groups the intensity of the early label was similar to that of the late label, indicating that the graft materials do not seem to retard mineralization. Discussion: BBM was found to promote as much new bone as did autogeneic bone. In addition, BBM appears to have at least the same osteoconductive properties as titanium, provided BBM is contained in a stable environment. Conclusions: Placement of autogeneic bone or BBM in conjunction with a stiff space-making barrier generated more tissue than a barrier only. In this model, autogeneic bone chips and BBM augmented similar amounts of new mineralized bone. (More than 50 references) INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2003;18:795–806


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help