Augmentation of calvarial tissue using non-permeable silicone domes and bovine bone mineral. An experimental study in the rat

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of bovine bone mineral placement as an adjunct to a guided bone regeneration (GBR)‐barrier in experimental bone augmentation. Some 18 Sprague‐Dawley rats underwent flap surgery in which non‐permeable silicone domes were placed on the calvaria....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral implants research 1999-12, Vol.10 (6), p.468-476
Hauptverfasser: Slotte, Christer, Lundgren, Dan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of bovine bone mineral placement as an adjunct to a guided bone regeneration (GBR)‐barrier in experimental bone augmentation. Some 18 Sprague‐Dawley rats underwent flap surgery in which non‐permeable silicone domes were placed on the calvaria. A test group of 9 animals received domes filled with cancellous deproteinized bovine bone mineral (Bio‐Oss®). The domes of 9 control animals were left empty. The experiment was terminated after 8 weeks of healing. Inspection after histologic preparation found no signs of any foreign body reaction to the implanted bovine bone mineral, which seemed to be well integrated with the augmented tissue. The control specimens healed uniformly with new bone inside the domes at the base of the calvaria. The tissue inside the domes of the test specimens had a completely different architecture with new bone both at the base of the calvaria and at a distance from the base, surrounded by and in close contact with non‐mineralized tissue and remaining bovine bone mineral. Some ingrowth of soft connective tissue, most likely from the sagittal skull suture could be seen in most test and control specimens. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the total amount of augmented tissue was significantly greater in the test group (x=1.93±O.21 mm2) than in the control group (x=0.99±0.22 mm2), P
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100605.x