Cell viability after osteotomy and bone harvesting: comparison of piezoelectric surgery and conventional bur |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA;2. Department of Periodontology, Service of Odontology, Rothschild Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7 – Denis, Diderot University, U.F.R. of Odontology, Paris, France;3. Stanford Oral Medicine & Maxillofacial Surgery Service, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA;1. Digestive Disease Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA;2. Department of Medicine, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA;3. Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA;1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands;1. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea;2. Cancer Research Institute, Research Institute for Medical Sciences, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea |
| |
| Abstract: | ![]()
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the influence of a piezoelectric device versus a conventional bur on osteocyte viability and osteoblast and osteoclast activity using an in vivo mouse model. Osteotomies were created and bone grafts were harvested using either a conventional bur or a piezoelectric device; the resulting injuries and bone grafts were evaluated over an extended time-course using molecular and cellular assays for cell death (TUNEL assay), cell viability (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) staining), the onset of mineralization (alkaline phosphatase activity), and bone remodelling (tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase activity). Osteotomies created with a piezoelectric device showed greater osteocyte viability and reduced cell death. Bone grafts harvested with a piezoelectric device exhibited greater short-term cell viability than those harvested with a bur, and exhibited slightly more new bone deposition and bone remodelling. The difference in response of osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts to bone cutting via a bur and via a piezoelectric device is negligible in vivo. Given the improved visibility and the margin of safety afforded by a piezoelectric device, they are the instrument of choice when cutting or harvesting bone to preserve soft tissue. |
| |
| Keywords: | bone ultrasound cell viability bone graft osteoconduction osteoinduction in vivo cutting harvesting |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
