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 journalArticlepeer-review

14 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

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The help and support of Dr. In-Kyeong Lee and Sora Yoon at the Department of Periodontology, Yonsei University is greatly appreciated. The authors would also like to address gratitude to Ms. Sonja Hitz, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich for the histomorphometric analysis of the slides. The study was supported by the Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and by the basic science research program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2014R1A1A1A05002953). The PEG hydrogels and the HA/TCP materials were provided by Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this