Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques

Daniel S. Thoma, Ui Won Jung, Jin Young Park, Stefan P. Bienz, Jürg Hüsler, Ronald E. Jung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel with or without the addition of an arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) sequence applied as a matrix in combination with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) results in similar peri-implant bone regeneration as traditional guided bone regeneration procedures. Material and methods: In 12 beagle dogs, implant placement and peri-implant bone regeneration were performed 2 months after tooth extraction in the maxilla. Two standardized box-shaped defects were bilaterally created, and dental implants were placed in the center of the defects with a dehiscence of 4 mm. Four treatment modalities were randomly applied: i)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel, ii)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel supplemented with an RGD sequence, iii)HA/TCP covered with a native collagen membrane (CM), iv)and no bone augmentation (empty). After a healing period of 8 or 16 weeks, micro-CT and histological analyses were performed. Results: Histomorphometric analysis revealed a greater relative augmented area for groups with bone augmentation (43.3%–53.9% at 8 weeks, 31.2%–42.8% at 16 weeks) compared to empty controls (22.9% at 8 weeks, 1.1% at 16 weeks). The median amount of newly formed bone was greatest in group CM at both time-points. Regarding the first bone-to-implant contact, CM was statistically significantly superior to all other groups at 8 weeks. Conclusions: Bone can partially be regenerated at peri-implant buccal dehiscence defects using traditional guided bone regeneration techniques. The use of a PEG hydrogel applied as a matrix mixed with a synthetic bone substitute material might lack a sufficient stability over time for this kind of defect.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e76-e83
JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
Volume28
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jul

Fingerprint

Bone Regeneration
Hydrogel
Durapatite
Bone and Bones
Collagen
Membranes
Bone Substitutes
Tooth Extraction
Dental Implants
Cheek
Maxilla
Dogs
Acids

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

@article{765dee1e64c640599a2f8a702726cd03,
title = "Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel with or without the addition of an arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) sequence applied as a matrix in combination with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) results in similar peri-implant bone regeneration as traditional guided bone regeneration procedures. Material and methods: In 12 beagle dogs, implant placement and peri-implant bone regeneration were performed 2 months after tooth extraction in the maxilla. Two standardized box-shaped defects were bilaterally created, and dental implants were placed in the center of the defects with a dehiscence of 4 mm. Four treatment modalities were randomly applied: i)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel, ii)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel supplemented with an RGD sequence, iii)HA/TCP covered with a native collagen membrane (CM), iv)and no bone augmentation (empty). After a healing period of 8 or 16 weeks, micro-CT and histological analyses were performed. Results: Histomorphometric analysis revealed a greater relative augmented area for groups with bone augmentation (43.3{\%}–53.9{\%} at 8 weeks, 31.2{\%}–42.8{\%} at 16 weeks) compared to empty controls (22.9{\%} at 8 weeks, 1.1{\%} at 16 weeks). The median amount of newly formed bone was greatest in group CM at both time-points. Regarding the first bone-to-implant contact, CM was statistically significantly superior to all other groups at 8 weeks. Conclusions: Bone can partially be regenerated at peri-implant buccal dehiscence defects using traditional guided bone regeneration techniques. The use of a PEG hydrogel applied as a matrix mixed with a synthetic bone substitute material might lack a sufficient stability over time for this kind of defect.",
author = "Thoma, {Daniel S.} and Jung, {Ui Won} and Park, {Jin Young} and Bienz, {Stefan P.} and J{\"u}rg H{\"u}sler and Jung, {Ronald E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/clr.12877",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "e76--e83",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "7",

}

Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques. / Thoma, Daniel S.; Jung, Ui Won; Park, Jin Young; Bienz, Stefan P.; Hüsler, Jürg; Jung, Ronald E.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 28, No. 7, 07.2017, p. e76-e83.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques

AU - Thoma, Daniel S.

AU - Jung, Ui Won

AU - Park, Jin Young

AU - Bienz, Stefan P.

AU - Hüsler, Jürg

AU - Jung, Ronald E.

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Objectives: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel with or without the addition of an arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) sequence applied as a matrix in combination with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) results in similar peri-implant bone regeneration as traditional guided bone regeneration procedures. Material and methods: In 12 beagle dogs, implant placement and peri-implant bone regeneration were performed 2 months after tooth extraction in the maxilla. Two standardized box-shaped defects were bilaterally created, and dental implants were placed in the center of the defects with a dehiscence of 4 mm. Four treatment modalities were randomly applied: i)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel, ii)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel supplemented with an RGD sequence, iii)HA/TCP covered with a native collagen membrane (CM), iv)and no bone augmentation (empty). After a healing period of 8 or 16 weeks, micro-CT and histological analyses were performed. Results: Histomorphometric analysis revealed a greater relative augmented area for groups with bone augmentation (43.3%–53.9% at 8 weeks, 31.2%–42.8% at 16 weeks) compared to empty controls (22.9% at 8 weeks, 1.1% at 16 weeks). The median amount of newly formed bone was greatest in group CM at both time-points. Regarding the first bone-to-implant contact, CM was statistically significantly superior to all other groups at 8 weeks. Conclusions: Bone can partially be regenerated at peri-implant buccal dehiscence defects using traditional guided bone regeneration techniques. The use of a PEG hydrogel applied as a matrix mixed with a synthetic bone substitute material might lack a sufficient stability over time for this kind of defect.

AB - Objectives: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel with or without the addition of an arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) sequence applied as a matrix in combination with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) results in similar peri-implant bone regeneration as traditional guided bone regeneration procedures. Material and methods: In 12 beagle dogs, implant placement and peri-implant bone regeneration were performed 2 months after tooth extraction in the maxilla. Two standardized box-shaped defects were bilaterally created, and dental implants were placed in the center of the defects with a dehiscence of 4 mm. Four treatment modalities were randomly applied: i)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel, ii)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel supplemented with an RGD sequence, iii)HA/TCP covered with a native collagen membrane (CM), iv)and no bone augmentation (empty). After a healing period of 8 or 16 weeks, micro-CT and histological analyses were performed. Results: Histomorphometric analysis revealed a greater relative augmented area for groups with bone augmentation (43.3%–53.9% at 8 weeks, 31.2%–42.8% at 16 weeks) compared to empty controls (22.9% at 8 weeks, 1.1% at 16 weeks). The median amount of newly formed bone was greatest in group CM at both time-points. Regarding the first bone-to-implant contact, CM was statistically significantly superior to all other groups at 8 weeks. Conclusions: Bone can partially be regenerated at peri-implant buccal dehiscence defects using traditional guided bone regeneration techniques. The use of a PEG hydrogel applied as a matrix mixed with a synthetic bone substitute material might lack a sufficient stability over time for this kind of defect.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971015105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971015105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/clr.12877

DO - 10.1111/clr.12877

M3 - Article

C2 - 27206342

AN - SCOPUS:84971015105

VL - 28

SP - e76-e83

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 7

ER -