Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh

Alessandro Cucchi, Maria Sartori, Annapaola Parrilli, Nicolò N Aldini, Elisabetta Vignudelli, Giuseppe Corinaldesi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) allows to achieve vertical ridge augmentation whether with nonresorbable membranes or resorbable membranes with Ti-mesh, but till now no studies are published comparing histological and histomorphometrical outcomes of these two procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty partially edentulous patients required vertical bone regeneration to place implants in the posterior mandible: 20 patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-PTFE); while 20 patients to group B (Collagen plus Ti-mesh). For both groups, graft material was a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and bone allograft. After 9 months, tissue biopsies were taken from augmented sites (regenerated bone ROI-1; native bone ROI-2) and undergone to histological and histomorphometric analysis. Percentages of bone tissue (B.Ar), biomaterial (Mat. Ar), and soft tissue (St.Ar) were measured; measurements of perimeters were calculated too. ROI-1 values were also compared to ROI-2 in both groups.

RESULTS: Twenty-five samples were collected and analyzed consecutively: 13 in group A and 12 in group B. The mean B.Ar, Mat.Ar, and St.Ar were 39.7%, 8.6%, and 52.1% in group A; similar results were obtained in group B, with mean values of 42.1%, 9.6%, and 48.3%, respectively. No significant statistically differences were observed. Differences were observed between ROI-1 and ROI-2 in both group. Finally, bone structure index of ROI-1 and ROI-2 showed statistical differences.

CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this study suggest that GBR using nonresorbable membranes and Ti-mesh with resorbable membranes in combination with autogenous bone and bone allograft provide similar histological and histomorphometric results.

Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Jul 8 2019

Fingerprint

Bone Regeneration
Titanium
Bone and Bones
Membranes
Allografts
Polytetrafluoroethylene
Biocompatible Materials
Mandible
Collagen
Transplants
Biopsy

Keywords

  • bone augmentation
  • bone defects
  • histological analysis

Cite this

@article{9c652f8fb56b4b01a2515ef01842c0dd,
title = "Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) allows to achieve vertical ridge augmentation whether with nonresorbable membranes or resorbable membranes with Ti-mesh, but till now no studies are published comparing histological and histomorphometrical outcomes of these two procedures.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty partially edentulous patients required vertical bone regeneration to place implants in the posterior mandible: 20 patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-PTFE); while 20 patients to group B (Collagen plus Ti-mesh). For both groups, graft material was a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and bone allograft. After 9 months, tissue biopsies were taken from augmented sites (regenerated bone ROI-1; native bone ROI-2) and undergone to histological and histomorphometric analysis. Percentages of bone tissue (B.Ar), biomaterial (Mat. Ar), and soft tissue (St.Ar) were measured; measurements of perimeters were calculated too. ROI-1 values were also compared to ROI-2 in both groups.RESULTS: Twenty-five samples were collected and analyzed consecutively: 13 in group A and 12 in group B. The mean B.Ar, Mat.Ar, and St.Ar were 39.7{\%}, 8.6{\%}, and 52.1{\%} in group A; similar results were obtained in group B, with mean values of 42.1{\%}, 9.6{\%}, and 48.3{\%}, respectively. No significant statistically differences were observed. Differences were observed between ROI-1 and ROI-2 in both group. Finally, bone structure index of ROI-1 and ROI-2 showed statistical differences.CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this study suggest that GBR using nonresorbable membranes and Ti-mesh with resorbable membranes in combination with autogenous bone and bone allograft provide similar histological and histomorphometric results.",
keywords = "bone augmentation, bone defects, histological analysis",
author = "Alessandro Cucchi and Maria Sartori and Annapaola Parrilli and Aldini, {Nicol{\`o} N} and Elisabetta Vignudelli and Giuseppe Corinaldesi",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1111/cid.12814",
language = "English",
journal = "Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research",
issn = "1523-0899",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh

AU - Cucchi, Alessandro

AU - Sartori, Maria

AU - Parrilli, Annapaola

AU - Aldini, Nicolò N

AU - Vignudelli, Elisabetta

AU - Corinaldesi, Giuseppe

N1 - © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PY - 2019/7/8

Y1 - 2019/7/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) allows to achieve vertical ridge augmentation whether with nonresorbable membranes or resorbable membranes with Ti-mesh, but till now no studies are published comparing histological and histomorphometrical outcomes of these two procedures.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty partially edentulous patients required vertical bone regeneration to place implants in the posterior mandible: 20 patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-PTFE); while 20 patients to group B (Collagen plus Ti-mesh). For both groups, graft material was a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and bone allograft. After 9 months, tissue biopsies were taken from augmented sites (regenerated bone ROI-1; native bone ROI-2) and undergone to histological and histomorphometric analysis. Percentages of bone tissue (B.Ar), biomaterial (Mat. Ar), and soft tissue (St.Ar) were measured; measurements of perimeters were calculated too. ROI-1 values were also compared to ROI-2 in both groups.RESULTS: Twenty-five samples were collected and analyzed consecutively: 13 in group A and 12 in group B. The mean B.Ar, Mat.Ar, and St.Ar were 39.7%, 8.6%, and 52.1% in group A; similar results were obtained in group B, with mean values of 42.1%, 9.6%, and 48.3%, respectively. No significant statistically differences were observed. Differences were observed between ROI-1 and ROI-2 in both group. Finally, bone structure index of ROI-1 and ROI-2 showed statistical differences.CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this study suggest that GBR using nonresorbable membranes and Ti-mesh with resorbable membranes in combination with autogenous bone and bone allograft provide similar histological and histomorphometric results.

AB - BACKGROUND: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) allows to achieve vertical ridge augmentation whether with nonresorbable membranes or resorbable membranes with Ti-mesh, but till now no studies are published comparing histological and histomorphometrical outcomes of these two procedures.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty partially edentulous patients required vertical bone regeneration to place implants in the posterior mandible: 20 patients were randomly assigned to group A (Ti-PTFE); while 20 patients to group B (Collagen plus Ti-mesh). For both groups, graft material was a 50:50 mixture of autogenous bone and bone allograft. After 9 months, tissue biopsies were taken from augmented sites (regenerated bone ROI-1; native bone ROI-2) and undergone to histological and histomorphometric analysis. Percentages of bone tissue (B.Ar), biomaterial (Mat. Ar), and soft tissue (St.Ar) were measured; measurements of perimeters were calculated too. ROI-1 values were also compared to ROI-2 in both groups.RESULTS: Twenty-five samples were collected and analyzed consecutively: 13 in group A and 12 in group B. The mean B.Ar, Mat.Ar, and St.Ar were 39.7%, 8.6%, and 52.1% in group A; similar results were obtained in group B, with mean values of 42.1%, 9.6%, and 48.3%, respectively. No significant statistically differences were observed. Differences were observed between ROI-1 and ROI-2 in both group. Finally, bone structure index of ROI-1 and ROI-2 showed statistical differences.CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this study suggest that GBR using nonresorbable membranes and Ti-mesh with resorbable membranes in combination with autogenous bone and bone allograft provide similar histological and histomorphometric results.

KW - bone augmentation

KW - bone defects

KW - histological analysis

U2 - 10.1111/cid.12814

DO - 10.1111/cid.12814

M3 - Article

C2 - 31286649

JO - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

JF - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

SN - 1523-0899

ER -