Biofunctionalization of titanium implants with a biomimetic active peptide (P‐15) promotes early osseointegration

Objectives: The early stages of peri‐implant bone formation play an essential role in the osseointegration and long‐term success of dental implants. By incorporating bioactive coatings, this biofunctionalization of implant surfaces may enhance the attachment of the implant to the surrounding bone and stimulate bone regeneration. Material and methods: To demonstrate faster osseointegration, the surfaces of dental implants were grit‐blasted and acid‐etched. They were then coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) and experimental implants were further coated with a biomimetic active peptide (P‐15) in one of two concentrations. These biofunctionalized samples and controls with no peptide were placed in the forehead region of 12 adult pigs. Six animals were evaluated for a period of 14 or 30 days. Results: Histomorphometric analysis demonstrated that the implants with the high concentration of P‐15 had significantly higher percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) at 14 (P=0.018) and 30 (P=0.015) days compared with the other groups. Both concentrations of P‐15 showed increased peri‐implant bone density compared to the control group at 30 days. Conclusion: Biofunctionalization of the implant surface with a biomimetic active peptide leads to significantly increased BIC rates at 14 and 30 days and higher peri‐implant bone density at 30 days. To cite this article:
Lutz R, Srour S, Nonhoff J, Weisel T, Damien CJ, Schlegel KA. Biofunctionalization of titanium implants with a biomimetic active peptide (P‐15) promotes early osseointegration.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 726–734.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01904.x     

Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross-sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years

Aim: To evaluate the long‐term morbidity of intraoral bone harvesting from two different donor sites (mandibular symphysis or ramus) for bone augmentation procedures before or at the time of implant placement and to evaluate the success and the survival rates of implants placed in sites augmented with mandibular bone. Methods: Seventy‐eight patients who received mandibular bone grafts were recalled after 18–42 months follow‐up (mean 29 months). The group consisted of 36 men and 42 women aged between 18 and 68 years old at the moment of augmentation surgery. Vitality of teeth adjacent to the harvesting sites was investigated. Soft tissue superficial sensory function was assessed by the Pointed‐Blunt Test and the Two‐Point‐Discrimination Test. Implant health status was assessed measuring peri‐implant probing depth and bleeding on probing. Implant survival and success rates were also calculated. In order to evaluate patients' perception of the morbidity of the procedures, the patients were asked to answer several questions by means of visual analogue scales (VAS). Results: Only two teeth (out of 282) in the chin harvesting group needed root canal treatment after surgery. A higher frequency of minor temporary and permanent sensorial disturbances was found in the group of patients who received chin harvesting procedures (2.3% vs. 13%P=0.03), while pain during chewing and bleeding were more frequently recorded after ramus harvesting (9.8% vs. 0%P=0.03). No permanent anesthesia of any region of the skin was reported. Implants' survival and success rate were comparable to implants placed in bone reconstructed with other techniques and were not influenced by the choice of the donor site. Patient's perception regarding the morbidity of the procedures was very low and did not differ between ramus and chin harvesting groups (mean VAS scores <4). Conclusion: The present cross‐sectional retrospective study demonstrated the safety of mandibular grafts that reported excellent results in terms of implant success and survival rates with minor complications regarding the donor site area. When the chin was chosen as donor site, minor sensorial disturbances of mucosa and teeth were recorded. The majority of these disturbances were temporary; only few of them were permanent but still had no impact on patient's life. To cite this article:
Cordaro L, Torsello F, Miuccio MT, Mirisola di Torresanto V, Eliopoulos D. Mandibular bone harvesting for alveolar reconstruction and implant placement: subjective and objective cross‐sectional evaluation of donor and recipient site up to 4 years.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 1320–1326.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02115.x     

Comparative study of the osseointegration of dental implants after different bone augmentation techniques: vascularized femur flap, non-vascularized femur graft and mandibular bone graft

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of the dental implants placed into the mandible augmented with different techniques in pigs. Material and methods: Four adult domestic pigs were used. Horizontal augmentation of the mandible was performed in animals by using vascularized femur flap (VFF), non‐vascularized femur graft (NVFG) and monocortical mandibular block graft (MG). After 5 months of healing 10 dental implants were placed into each augmented site. The pigs were sacrificed after 3 months of healing. Undecalcified sections were prepared for histomorphometric analysis. Results: Mean bone–implant contact (BIC) values for implants placed into MG, NVFG and VFF were 57.38 ± 11.97%, 76.5 ± 7.88%, 76.53 ± 8.15%, respectively. The BIC values of NVFG and VFF group were significantly greater than MG group (P<0.001). On the other hand, there was not statistically significant difference between NVFG group and VFF group (P=0.999). Conclusion: NVFG as well as VFF can be considered as a promising method for augmentation of alveolar defects and the placement of the implants. The selection of non‐vascularized graft or vascularized flap depends on the condition of the recipient site. To cite this article:
Benlidayi ME, Gaggl A, Bürger H, Brandner C, Kurkcu M, Ünlügenç H. Comparative study of the osseointegration of dental implants after different bone augmentation techniques: vascularized femur flap, non‐vascularized femur graft and mandibular bone graft.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 594–599
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02013.x     

Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate immunohistochemically the pattern of guided bone regeneration (GBR) using different types of barrier membranes. Material and methods: Standardized buccal dehiscence defects were surgically created following implant bed preparation in 12 beagle dogs. Defects were randomly assigned to six different GBR procedures: a collagen‐coated bone grafting material (BOC) in combination with either a native, three cross‐linked, a titanium‐reinforced collagen membrane, or expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE), or BOC alone. After 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 weeks of submerged healing, dissected blocks were processed for immunohistochemical (osteocalcin – OC, transglutaminase II – angiogenesis) and histomorphometrical analysis [e.g., bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC), area of new bone fill (BF)]. Results: In general, angiogenesis, OC antigen reactivity, and new bone formation mainly arose from open bone marrow spaces at the bottom of the defect and invaded the dehiscence areas along the implant surface and BOC. At 4 weeks, membranes supporting an early transmembraneous angiogenesis also exhibited some localized peripheral areas of new bone formation. However, significantly increasing BIC and BF values over time were observed in all groups. Membrane exposure after 10–12 weeks was associated with a loss of the supporting alveolar bone in the ePTFE group. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that (i) angiogenesis plays a crucial role in GBR and (ii) all membranes investigated supported bone regeneration on an equivalent level.