Guided bone regeneration using cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate in a dehiscence defect

A histologic study in dogs

Jung Seok Lee, Seung Hee Ko, Young Taek Kim, Ui-Won Jung, Seongho Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate (CCP) as a candidate for a barrier membrane substitute in guided bone regeneration and the space maintenance capability of CCP placed in a dehiscence defect model. Six standardized dehiscence defects (5 × 3 mm, height × width) around dental implants were created on unilateral edentulous ridges in 5 dogs, where each defect was treated with sham surgery, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), CCP, barrier membrane (MEM), BCP + MEM, and CCP + MEM. The animals were sacrificed after an 8-week healing interval for histologic and histometric analyses. The BCP and CCP sites showed increased bone formation compared with the control sites, although incomplete defect resolution occurred; bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.52 ± 0.69 mm (4.94 ± 2.59 mm2), 3.51 ± 0.16 mm (4.10 ± 1.99 mm2), and 1.53 ± 0.42 mm (1.01 ± 0.74 mm2) for the BCP, CCP, and control sites, respectively. All the MEM sites showed more bone formation compared with the sites that received the same biomaterials without a MEM, and the BCP + MEM and CCP + MEM sites showed extensive bone formation within the defect and on top of the implant; the bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.96 ± 2.86 mm (12.46 ± 11.61 mm2), 5.45 ± 0.25 mm (11.63 ± 1.97 mm2), and 2.62 ± 0.27 mm (3.43 ± 0.98 mm2) for the BCP + MEM, CCP + MEM, and MEM sites, respectively. CCP can be a good scaffold for supporting an MEM as opposed to acting as a substitute for the MEM in guided bone regeneration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2070-2079
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume70
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Cyanoacrylates
Bone Regeneration
Dogs
Membranes
Osteogenesis
calcium phosphate
Orthodontic Space Maintenance
Dental Implants
Biocompatible Materials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

@article{628f7a7af1b441858b268fdd1da5d22c,
title = "Guided bone regeneration using cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate in a dehiscence defect: A histologic study in dogs",
abstract = "This study evaluated the effects of cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate (CCP) as a candidate for a barrier membrane substitute in guided bone regeneration and the space maintenance capability of CCP placed in a dehiscence defect model. Six standardized dehiscence defects (5 × 3 mm, height × width) around dental implants were created on unilateral edentulous ridges in 5 dogs, where each defect was treated with sham surgery, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), CCP, barrier membrane (MEM), BCP + MEM, and CCP + MEM. The animals were sacrificed after an 8-week healing interval for histologic and histometric analyses. The BCP and CCP sites showed increased bone formation compared with the control sites, although incomplete defect resolution occurred; bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.52 ± 0.69 mm (4.94 ± 2.59 mm2), 3.51 ± 0.16 mm (4.10 ± 1.99 mm2), and 1.53 ± 0.42 mm (1.01 ± 0.74 mm2) for the BCP, CCP, and control sites, respectively. All the MEM sites showed more bone formation compared with the sites that received the same biomaterials without a MEM, and the BCP + MEM and CCP + MEM sites showed extensive bone formation within the defect and on top of the implant; the bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.96 ± 2.86 mm (12.46 ± 11.61 mm2), 5.45 ± 0.25 mm (11.63 ± 1.97 mm2), and 2.62 ± 0.27 mm (3.43 ± 0.98 mm2) for the BCP + MEM, CCP + MEM, and MEM sites, respectively. CCP can be a good scaffold for supporting an MEM as opposed to acting as a substitute for the MEM in guided bone regeneration.",
author = "Lee, {Jung Seok} and Ko, {Seung Hee} and Kim, {Young Taek} and Ui-Won Jung and Seongho Choi",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.044",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "2070--2079",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "9",

}

Guided bone regeneration using cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate in a dehiscence defect : A histologic study in dogs. / Lee, Jung Seok; Ko, Seung Hee; Kim, Young Taek; Jung, Ui-Won; Choi, Seongho.

In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 70, No. 9, 01.09.2012, p. 2070-2079.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guided bone regeneration using cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate in a dehiscence defect

T2 - A histologic study in dogs

AU - Lee, Jung Seok

AU - Ko, Seung Hee

AU - Kim, Young Taek

AU - Jung, Ui-Won

AU - Choi, Seongho

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - This study evaluated the effects of cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate (CCP) as a candidate for a barrier membrane substitute in guided bone regeneration and the space maintenance capability of CCP placed in a dehiscence defect model. Six standardized dehiscence defects (5 × 3 mm, height × width) around dental implants were created on unilateral edentulous ridges in 5 dogs, where each defect was treated with sham surgery, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), CCP, barrier membrane (MEM), BCP + MEM, and CCP + MEM. The animals were sacrificed after an 8-week healing interval for histologic and histometric analyses. The BCP and CCP sites showed increased bone formation compared with the control sites, although incomplete defect resolution occurred; bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.52 ± 0.69 mm (4.94 ± 2.59 mm2), 3.51 ± 0.16 mm (4.10 ± 1.99 mm2), and 1.53 ± 0.42 mm (1.01 ± 0.74 mm2) for the BCP, CCP, and control sites, respectively. All the MEM sites showed more bone formation compared with the sites that received the same biomaterials without a MEM, and the BCP + MEM and CCP + MEM sites showed extensive bone formation within the defect and on top of the implant; the bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.96 ± 2.86 mm (12.46 ± 11.61 mm2), 5.45 ± 0.25 mm (11.63 ± 1.97 mm2), and 2.62 ± 0.27 mm (3.43 ± 0.98 mm2) for the BCP + MEM, CCP + MEM, and MEM sites, respectively. CCP can be a good scaffold for supporting an MEM as opposed to acting as a substitute for the MEM in guided bone regeneration.

AB - This study evaluated the effects of cyanoacrylate-combined calcium phosphate (CCP) as a candidate for a barrier membrane substitute in guided bone regeneration and the space maintenance capability of CCP placed in a dehiscence defect model. Six standardized dehiscence defects (5 × 3 mm, height × width) around dental implants were created on unilateral edentulous ridges in 5 dogs, where each defect was treated with sham surgery, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), CCP, barrier membrane (MEM), BCP + MEM, and CCP + MEM. The animals were sacrificed after an 8-week healing interval for histologic and histometric analyses. The BCP and CCP sites showed increased bone formation compared with the control sites, although incomplete defect resolution occurred; bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.52 ± 0.69 mm (4.94 ± 2.59 mm2), 3.51 ± 0.16 mm (4.10 ± 1.99 mm2), and 1.53 ± 0.42 mm (1.01 ± 0.74 mm2) for the BCP, CCP, and control sites, respectively. All the MEM sites showed more bone formation compared with the sites that received the same biomaterials without a MEM, and the BCP + MEM and CCP + MEM sites showed extensive bone formation within the defect and on top of the implant; the bone regeneration heights (area) averaged 3.96 ± 2.86 mm (12.46 ± 11.61 mm2), 5.45 ± 0.25 mm (11.63 ± 1.97 mm2), and 2.62 ± 0.27 mm (3.43 ± 0.98 mm2) for the BCP + MEM, CCP + MEM, and MEM sites, respectively. CCP can be a good scaffold for supporting an MEM as opposed to acting as a substitute for the MEM in guided bone regeneration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865259063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865259063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.044

DO - 10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.044

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 2070

EP - 2079

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 9

ER -