histomorphology of guided bone regeneration on …...intrabony, fenestration or dehiscence bony...
TRANSCRIPT
Histomorphology of Guided Bone
Regeneration on Dental Implant Dehiscence
Defects in Beagle dogs
Yoon-Sik Kim
The Graduate School
Yonsei University
Department of Dental Science
Histomorphology of Guided Bone
Regeneration on Dental Implant Dehiscence
Defects in Beagle dogs
A Dissertation ThesisSubmitted to the Department of Dental Scienceand the Graduate School of Yonsei University
in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy of Dental Science
Yoon-Sik Kim
June 2005
This certifies that the dissertation thesis
of Yoon-Sik Kim is approved
──────────────────────── Thesis Supervisor:Chong-Kwan Kim
────────────────────────
Kyoo-Sung Cho
────────────────────────
Seong-Ho Choi
────────────────────────
Keun-Woo Lee
────────────────────────
Hee-Jin Kim
The Graduate School
Yonsei University
June 2005
감감감사사사의의의 글글글
본 논문이 완성되기까지 시작부터 세심한 배려로 마칠 때까지 격려해주시고 지도하여 주신 김종관 교수님께 깊은 감사를 드리며 아울러 많은조언을 해주신 조규성 교수님,최성호 교수님,그리고 바쁘신 와중에도 예심,본심,종심까지 심사를 해주신 이근우 교수님,김희진 교수님께도 감사드립니다.또한 동물실험과 본 연구에 많은 도움을 주신 김태균,진미성,김동진
선생과 우수한 슬라이드 사진을 촬영해주며 갖은 심부름을 도맡아 해준 홍지연 선생과 실험내내 도움을 주신 치주과 교실원 여러분들께도 감사의 마음을 전합니다.부족한 영어를 보충해주신 최동훈 선생님께도 감사를 드립니다.그리고 지금까지 항상 사랑과 격려로 모든 학위과정을 마칠 때까지 보
살펴 주시고,이끌어주시며 같이 기뻐해 주신 양가 부모님께 감사드립니다.항상 건강하십시오.그리고 논문을 쓰는 동안 함께 해준 사랑하는 아들 민관이와 딸 내경,
그리고,아내 미정에게 이 논문을 바칩니다.
2005년 7월김 윤 식
- i -
Table of Contents
Abstract (English) ·························································································· iii
I. Introduction ·································································································· 1
II. Materials and Methods ·············································································· 5
A. Animals & Materials ·········································································· 5
B. Experimental design ············································································ 6
C. Surgical protocol ·················································································· 7
D. Histologic Preparation & Findings ···················································· 9
III. Results ····································································································· 10
A. Clinical Findings ················································································ 10
B. Histologic findings ·············································································10
IV. Discussion ······························································································· 13
V. Conculsion ································································································ 22
VI. References ······························································································· 24
Legends ··········································································································· 35
Figures ············································································································ 39
Abstract (Korean) ·························································································· 45
- ii -
Table of Table
Table 1 : Table 1. Experimental Design .................................................... 5
List of Figures
Figure 1 : A schematic diagram depicting the experimental design ..............5
Figure 2 : Photograph of Surgically created dehiscence defect adjacent dental implant ............................................................. 31
Figure 3. A:Photograph of the chitosan membrane only (Group 1, Left) ······································································ 31 B:β-TCP+chitosan membrane (Group 2, Right) ···················· 31
Figure 4,5. Photomicrograph of Control (No treatment) ························ 40
Figure 6. Photomicrograph of Control (No treatment) ························ 41
Figure 7. Photomicrograph of the chitosan membrane only (Group 1) ·················································································· 41
Figure 8,9. Photomicrograph of the chitosan membrane only (Group 1) ·················································································· 42
Figure 10,11. Photomicrograph of β-TCP+ chitosan membrane (Group 2) ··············································································· 43
Figure 12. Photomicrograph of autogenous bone+++β-TCP + chitosan membrane (Group 3) ··············································· 44
- iii -
Abstract
Histomorphology of Guided Bone Regeneration on Dental Implant
Dehiscence Defects in Beagle dogs
Dehiscence bone defects, frequently observed on dental implants placed in
periodontitis-affected alveolar bone or extraction sockets were treated with β
-tricalcium phosphate and chitosan membrane for guided bone regeneration, and the
new bone formation on the treated sites were studied. Beagle dogs 18 to 24 month-old
weighing approximately 15kg were used for the experiment. First to fourth mandibular
premolars were extracted, and the post extraction alveolar bone surface was planed.
After 8 weeks of healing, 3 by 4 mm dehiscence defects were created using straight
fissure burs. Total of 16 oxidized titanium surface implants were placed on the bone
defects of the subjects, two on each side. Control sites were treated with implants only.
Experimental Group 1 sites were treated with implants and chitosan membrane.
Experimental Group 2 sites were treated with implants, β-tricalcium phosphate and
chitosan membrane. Experimental Group 3 sites were treated with implants, β
-tricalcium phosphate, autogenous bone and chitosan membrane. The animals were
sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement, and the specimens from the treated sites
were histologically studied with following results.
1. Limited amount of new bone formation was observed in control group with
unexposed membrane.
- iv -
2. Slightly greater amount of bone formation was observed on sites treated with β
-TCP+membrane or autogenous bone+β-TCP+membrane compared to control group.
3. Sites with early wound exposure showed signs of acute inflammation and limited
amount of new bone formation was observed regardless of membranes or bone
substitutes used.
4. Remnants of Chitosan membrane and β-TCP encapsulated with connective tissue
were observed during experimental periods.
These results suggest that further studies are needed on membrane rigidity and
infection control for space maintenance underneath the membrane and bone
substitutes in the treatment of dehiscence defects.
Key word : implant dehiscence defect, GBR, autogenous bone, β-tricalcium
phosphate, chitosan membrane
- 1 -
Histomorphology of Guided Bone Regeneration on Dental Implant
Dehiscence Defects in Beagle dogs
Department of Dental science, The graduate School, Yonsei University
(Directed By Prof. Chong Kwan Kim, D.D.S., M.S.D., Ph.D)
Yoon-Sik Kim, D.D.S.
I. Introduction
Dental implants have been widely used for many years in the treatment of
esthetic and functional problems from alveolar bone loss following tooth
extraction. The success of implants essentially depends on qualities and
quantities of the surrounding bone during implant placement (Jovanovic et al.
1992; Johnson et al. 1997; Vicente et al. 2000). During implant placement,
thread exposure is often observed, especially in post-extraction sites or where
alveolar ridges are thin. The development of bone graft materials and
membrane techniques may give surgeons some options to solve these problems
(Hall et al. 1999; Piattelli et al. 1998; Dahlin et al 1989; Becker et al 1990;
Simion et al 1994, 1997; Becker et al. 1992, 1995; Mellonig & Nevins 1995;
Nyman et al. 1990; Palmer et al 1994).
Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has emerged as a treatment in the
- 2 -
management of osseous defects associated with dental implants (Buser et al.
1994). Such defects may include supra-alveolar or lateral ridge defects, and
intrabony, fenestration or dehiscence bony defects. The placement of a barrier
membrane for GBR creates an isolated space for a blood clot to serve as a
matrix for alveolar bone regeneration. Dahlin et al.(1989) were able to show that
the degree of bone formation or fenestration defects in the maxilla is significantly
improved when the membrane technique is employed. In nonspace-making
defects, such as buccal dehiscence defects, adjunctive measures have been
suggested to support or tent the barrier membrane to provide a space for bone
regeneration to occur including placement of autograft bone, bone derivatives and
substitutes, or fixation screws or pins with or without adjunctive bone materials
(Becker et al. 1994; Buser et al. 1990; Jovanovic et al. 1992; Nevins & Mellonig
1992, 1994; Werbitt & Goldberg 1992; Shanaman 1992; Mellonig & Triplett
1993; Martin et al 1998).
E-PTFE membrane is effective to tissue integrity, but not resorbable, that is
needed secondary surgery. Recently many studies show the resorbable membrane
such as collagen, atelocollagen, polylactic acld (Guidor Matrix Barrier), polylactic
910(Vicryl Mesh), glycolide & lactide copoly-mer(Resolut Regenerative Material),
chitosan membrane, etc(Pitaru et al 1988; Laurell et al 1994; Caton et al 1994;
Caffesse et al 1994; Yeo et al 2005).
The use of chitosan (poly-N-acetyl glycosaminoglycan) in bone regeneration has
attracted a biodegradable natural biopolymer that has been shown to improve wound
healing and enhance bone formation (Lee et al., 2000; Madihally and Howard, 1999).
- 3 -
Recent reports have noted chitosan's efficacy in the promotion of oral wound
healing in human studies(Klokkevold et al. 1999; Muzzarelli et al. 1989;
Sapelli et al. 1986).
Collapse of barrier membranes frequently encountered under pressure of the
overlying soft tissues often requires additional support via fillers placed
underneath the membrane. Mechanical strength is apparently insufficient, and a
space-making effect is completely lost in those cases where soft tissue
dehiscences leads to rupture of the membrane and subsequent collapse into the
defect. So the bone particles used for augmentation provide little additional
support to the membrane. Such studies have reported different degrees of success
of guided bone regeneration, depending upon the type of barrier selected,
presence or absence of an underlying graft material (Covani et al. 2003), types of
graft material, feasibility of technique, and clinician's preference (Becker et al
1994a, 1994b; Becker & Becker 1990; Carpio et al. 2000; Hall et al. 1999;
Hockers et al. 1999; Hutmacher et al. 1996; Jovanovic et al. 1992; Zablotskyet
al. 1991; Zitzmann et al. 1997).
The material used for augmentation should be osteoconductive and must
provide enough stability to resist soft tissue pressure above the membrane. For
these purposes, autogenous bone is still considered to be the material of choice
because of its unique biologic properties. The major drawback of autogenous
bone, however, is the additional surgical procedure. Alloplast, such as the
bioactive glass, may be an effective alternative to DFDB (Hall et al. 1999;
Johnson et al. 1997; Low et al. 1997; Vicente et al. 2000). Commonly used
- 4 -
ceramic bioactive alloplastic bone grafting materials include hydroxyapatite and
β-tricalcium phosphate, which have been reported to form a chemical bond to
bone tissue (Baldock et al 1985; Furusawa et al 1997; Nery et al. 1975).
Recently, Studies about the use of β-tricalcium phosphate with dental implant
placement were reported (Merten et al. 2001; Nkenke et al. 2002; Palti &
Hoch 2002; Trisi et al. 2003; von Arx et al 2001; Zerbo et al. 2001). The
pure β-TCP was resorbed simultaneously with new bone formation, without
interference with the bone matrix formation.
The purpose of this study is to histologically evaluate and compare the healing
of the dehiscence defects using chitosan membrane, β-TCP, autogenous bone
around submerged oxidizing surface dental implant in beagle dogs. Histologic
analysis provides the clinician with better understanding for selecting the most
suitable graft materials.
- 5 -
II. Materials and Methods
A. Animals & Materials
1. Animals
Four male, lab-bred beagle dogs, approximately 18 to 24 months old and
weighing about 15 kg, were used. The animals had intact dentition and healthy
periodontium. Porous β-tricalcium phosphate particles1), newly developed chitosan
membrane2) were used in dehiscence defects around oxidizing surface dental
implant (8.5mm in length, 3.3mm in diameter)3). Animal selection and
management, surgical protocol, and preparation followed routines approved by the
Animal Care and Use Committee, Yonsei Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
2. Chitosan non-woven membrane
a. Manufacturing Chitosan Fibers
In order to prepare the chitosan dope, biomedical grade chitosan (degree of
deacetylation 100 %, MW 540,000, polydispersity 1.20) was dissolved in 2 % acetic
acid with a concentration of 3 % (w/w). The dope was then filtered and de-aerated for
further continuous spinning through a nozzle assembly with 0.1 mm ø×1500 holes
using a metering gear pump.
The coagulation-bath was composed of a 10% NaOH solution. The bundle of
filaments were neutralized and coagulated in the bath. These were then stretched
1) CerasorbⓇ, Curasan AG, Kleinostheim, Germany.2) Department of Clothing & Textiles, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.3) Bio-PlantⓇ, for the experimental usage, manufactured by Cowell-Medi Co. Seoul,
Korea.
- 6 -
approximately 20 % and rinsed in 100°C water with the subsequent treatment of a
spinning oil emulsion and drying resulting in the chitosan fiber product.
b. Manufacturing Needle-punched Nonwoven Fabrics made of chitosan fibers
The chitosan fibers were steam treated and subjected to a stuffer box treatment in
order for the fibers to have the appropriate crimp level. These were then cut to 50 µm
length staple fibers. The chitosan fibers were open with the opening machine, which
were then carded by roll carding machine to manufacture a chitosan fiber web. Five
or six layers of the manufactured webs were arranged, and subjected to an additional
needle punching process to obtain the nonwoven fabrics. The thickness of the
manufactured nonwoven fabrics was adjusted to 2 mm using a calender with the
proper setting of the machine pressure.
B. Experimental design
Animals were divided in four groups. Animals in the sugical control group
were given the flap operation only. (Table 1, Fig 1)
Table 1. Experimental Design
Group Treatment
Control
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Flap only
Chitosan membrane
β-TCP+Chitosan membrane
Autograft+β-TCP+Chitosan membrane
- 7 -
Fig 1. A schematic diagram depicting the experimental design
C. Surgical protocol
Prestudy preparation included scaling and plaque control to obtain gingival
health.
Teeth were extracted under general anesthesia and sterile conditions in an
operating room using Atropine4) 0.05㎎ /㎏ SQ, RompunⓇ5) 2㎎ /㎏ , Ketamine6) 10
㎎ /㎏ IV as a premedication. The dogs were placed on a heating pad, intubated,
and inhalated with 2% enflurane and monitored with an electrocardiogram. After
disinfection of the surgical sites, 2% lidocane HCl with epinephrine 1:100,000
was used by infiltration at the surgical sites. The animals received lactated
Ringer's solution7) intravenously during surgeries. Elevation of buccal and lingual
4) Kwangmyung Parm. Co.,Ltd, Seoul. Korea5) Bayer Korea Ltd, Seoul, Korea6) Korea United Pharm, Seoul. Korea7) Lactated Ringer's Inj., Jung-Wae Pharmaceutical Company, Seoul. Korea
- 8 -
mucoperiosteal gingival flaps were made following crevicular incisions from the
distal aspect of the mandibular canine to the mesial aspect of the first molar. The
roots of the mandibular premolar teeth were separated with dental burs and
chisels, and were carefully extracted. Flaps were sutured with vertical mattress
5-0 resorbable sutures. The dogs received antibiotics Cefazoline8) 10㎎ /㎏ IV the
day of surgery.
The implants were placed under the same surgical conditions as the tooth
extraction after a healing period of 8 weeks. A crestal incision was made
preservation of keratinized tissue on each side of the incision. Mucoperiosteal flaps
were carefully reflected on the buccal and lingual aspect. The edentulous ridge
was carefully flattened with an surgical bur and irrigation with sterile saline. Four
implant sites (2 per jaw quadrant) were prepared. Two implants were placed on
each side of the mandible. The implant osteotomy was performed at 800 rpm
under irrigation of chilled saline. Before placement, a standardized dehiscence
defect (3☓4mm) was created at the buccal of the each implant site with a straight
fissure bur(Fig2.). Placement was made without tapping. The implants were
positioned such that the most coronal portion of the implant body was level with
the osseous crest and centered in a buccal - lingual position. Each animal received
2 dental implants per jaw quadrant for a total of 16 implants for the 4 animals.
Graft materials were then inserted into the dehiscence defect sites.
The flap were closed with 5-0 resorbable sutures. Periosteal releasing incisions
were performed to achieve tension free wound closure. Vertical mattress and
8) Yuhan Co. Seoul. Korea
- 9 -
interrupted sutures were used. The post-operative care was the same as the tooth
extraction. Throughout the study, the animals were fed with a soft diet to prevent
mechanical trauma during healing.
The dogs were sacrificed at 12 weeks following placement of the graft
materials. Euthanasia was performed with an overdose of the drugs used in the
process of anesthesia. Block sections including segments with implants were
preserved and fixed in 10 % neutral buffered formalin for histologic preparation
and analysis.
D. Histologic Preparation & Findings
48 hours after sacrifice, the specimens were cut into block sections on a low
speed saw and placed in fresh 10% formalin for complete fixation before
dehydration. The specimens were then dehydrated through graded alcohols of
70%, 80%, 95%, 95%, 100%, 100% at 2 hour intervals for 1 week. Infiltration
was completed by using monomer and embedded in methyl-methacrylate resin.
Polymerization of the specimens lasted seven days. Methyl-methacrylate blocks
were trimmed with a band saw and mounted on a plastic mount with adhesive.
Block was reduced with the grinding unit to approximately 40㎛ thickness, and
stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin.
Sections were analyzed under microscope for new bone formation and bone to
implant contact and residual graft particle content.
- 10 -
III. Results
A. Clinical Findings
During the postoperative healing periods, there were pre-exposure of the tissue
covering the remaining implants. Three implants were lost because of severe
inflammation.
B. Histologic findings
Evaluation of the histologic sections revealed similar findings in all treatment
group. Similar aspect showed in control and Group1, but Group2 and Group 3
were different. There was no evidence of acute inflammatory reaction around
unexposed dental implants. Premature exposed implants showed acute
inflammation and bone loss. Grafted particles retained adjacent to the implant
could be seen. The treatment groups in this study showed histologic evidence of
a little new bone formation from the base of the bone defects. Slightly bone loss
of distal side of implant (no bony defect) was observed.
1. The control ( flap only )
Upper parts of bone defects were completely filled with connective tissue
which consisted of some fiber, blood vessels, and inflammatory cells. Collapsed
defect space were observed in this specimen(Fig 4). There was little or no
- 11 -
inflammatory cell infiltration. However, there was a little amount of newly
formed bone adjacent to the surface of the implants, originating from the existing
base of the bone defects. Small amount of new bone-to-implant contact was
revealed and direct bone-to-implant contact at the lingual side of implant(Fig 5).
Vertical oriented CT fibers. Separation from implant surface is an artifact(Fig 6).
2. Group 1 ( Chitosan membrane )
Minimal amount of newly formed bone originating from existing bone was
found only in the proximity of the base of the bone defects. New bone-to-implant
surface contact was not seen. Such findings were similar to those of the control.
In the more basal area of bone regeneration direct bone-to-implant contact
without intervening soft tissue was present. Chitosan membrane remnants with
connective tissue and fibrous tissue above new bone and a little amount of new
bone formation near the surface of dental implant(Fig 7). Separation from implant
surface is an artifact(Fig 8). Parallel oriented osteoblasts far from implant were
shown. Thick staining on osteoblast surround blood vessel, vertical oriented
osteoblast near the surface of dental implant(Fig 9). There were inflammatory cells
exist in peripheral tissues.
3. Group 2 ( ββββ -TCP+++Chitosan membrane )
Most of the β-TCP granule in the dehisence defects were surrounded with
connective tissue. New bone formation around graft materials was not present. A
little amount of new bone formation originating from the existing base of bone
- 12 -
defects was observed at the surface of dental implant, new bone-to-implant
surface contact was not present. Detachment of the trabeculae from the implant
surface was likely an artifact created during biopsy retrieval and specimen
preparation. More apically, bone was denser, with large marrow spaces(Fig 10).
There was no evidence of osseointegration at the grafted area. Chitosan membrane
remnants and granules surrounded with connective tissue and inflammatory
cells above new bone were shown(Fig 11). There was direct bone-to-implant contact
under chitosan membrane.
4. Group 3 ( Autograft+++ββββ -TCP+++Chitosan membrane )
The biopsies from these sites consisted of grafted bone particles enmeshed in
connective tissue. Most of the β-TCP was observed at the middle part of the
defects. Some amount of newly formed bone adjacent surface of the implants
was observed, originating from the existing base of bone defects. However, new
bone- to-implant surface contact was not revealed. Fibrous connective tissue
distinguish the bone and the surface of implant. A large amount of inflammatory
cells near the surface of dental implant(Fig 12). New bone formation under
autogenous bone and chitosan membrane. Implant-to-CT interface, parallel fiber.
Separation from implant surface is an artifact.
- 13 -
IV. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to histologically evaluate and compare the
healing of the dehiscence defects treated with chitosan membrane, autogenous
bone, and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) around submerged oxidized titanium
surface dental implant in beagle dogs. Exposure of a part of the implant suface
is a common feature of implant placement, especially in postextraction sites or
where there are thin alveolar ridges. It is often necessary to apply the principles
of guided bone regeneration to improve bone regeneration with or without
grafting materials because of bone defect such as dehiscence fenestration,
circumferential bone defect (Jovanovic et al. 1992; Kohal et al. 1998). An ideal
method to treat such defects is to regenerate alveolar bone through GBR
procedures. There are many graft materials and technique that are used recently
in attempt to repair osseous defects around implants (Artzi et al. 1997; Becker
et al. 1990; Dahlin et al. 1989; Hall et al. 1999; Hṻrzeler et al. 1997; Lazzara
1989; Vicente et al. 2000; Zablotsky et al. 1991). The first experimental study
evaluating GBR in conjunction with root form dental implants was published by
Dahlin and coworkers (1989). The membranes most often used for guided bone
regeneration are bioinert membranes made of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
(e-PTFE). Non-resorbable membranes, however, require surgical removal after
4-6 weeks, posing risks such as possible damage to newly-formed bone tissue
through mechanical interruption or failure to achieve flap coverage over the new
tissue. Resorbable membranes eliminate such problems in addition to the
- 14 -
financial burden of secondary surgical procedure for patients. A few studies
have demonstrated the incapacity of resorbable membranes to promote bone
growth in a vertical direction, since these materials lack sufficient rigidity and
stability to protect the underlying regenerative area. Cortellini et al. (1996)
compared resorbable membranes (Resolut; W.L.GORE) and non-resorbable
membranes (e-PTFE) and reported no difference in attachement gain. Becker et
al. (1996) studied attachment changes for one year using resorbable membrane
(Resolut; W.L.GORE) with positive results. Resorbable membranes, once
exposed, are difficult to remove, and spread of infection of newly formed tissue
under the membrane cannot be prevented. For these reasons, Becker et al.
(1996) suggested that non- resorbable membranes should be used in cases where
early phase wound closure was uncertain. They also recommended more strict
attention to factors that might affect healing such as plaque control and smoking
habit should be used in resorbable membrane cases.
Consequently, researchers have recently grown interested in the search for a
new non-toxic, biodegradable material that would be free from any side effect.
Among them, the most representative are natural biopolymers, especially,
dextrin, mucopolysaccharide, and chitin. Among those considered, chitin and its
extract, chitosan (poly-N-acetyl glucosaminoglycan), are attracting particular
attention. In addition to biological merits, chitosan is a superior implantation
material because of its versatile physical property: its availability in a variety
of forms-such as solutions, powders, flakes, gels, sponges, fibers and
film-facilitates its use. It is also easy to combine chitosan with other materials
- 15 -
(Park et al. 2003). Lab and animal studies have proved chitosan's ability to
reduce the weight by absorbing and combining fat, control the cholesterol
level, reinforce the immune reaction against bacteria, virus, and cancerous
cells, and enhance the healing of injured connective tissue and the bleeding
control (Sapelli et al. 1986; Moon et al. 1996; Klokkevold et al. 1999). Ito et
al(1991). have developed self-hardening mixtures of chitosan and
hydroxyapatite as well as chitosan and β-tricalcium phosphate and proposed
their use as bone filling pastes of edentulous ridge. Newly developed chitosan
membrane is a biodegradable barrier membrane which is proven to be safe in
animal and human studies. Regeneration potential of the membrane is also
expected to be comparable to e-PTFE membrane (Yeo et al. 2003).
Resorbable barriers generally lack sufficient rigidity to maintain the space
and tend to collapse into the defect. The use of filling materials has recently
gained new interest coupled with the use of the barrier membranes, since this
allows for the space-making effect when the membrane is not stiff enough.
Jovanovic et al. (1995) suggested that in large defects where stable
maintenance of blood clots might be difficult, use of bone graft could be
helpful in protecting the blood clots. The bone graft can induce bone
formation and provide space-maintenance. Nevin et al. (1994) and Mellonig et
al. (1995) showed that allograft used under GBR membrane successfully
provided space for new bone formation.
Among the numerous filling materials, autologous bone seems to be the gold
standard, but its use is limited by the necessity of an additional surgical
- 16 -
procedure, the difficulty of obtaining large amounts of donor tissue, and the
risk of complications. For these reasons, many attempts have been made to
find a synthetic graft material that matches the features of autologous bone.
Researchers have paid attention to the development of bone substitutes
including synthetic materials, which could be used to secure a space for bone
growth. Recently, Studies about the use of β-tri-calcium phosphate with dental
implant placement were reported (Nkenke et al. 2002; Palti & Hoch 2002;
Trisi et al. 2003; von Arx et al 2001; Zerbo et al. 2001).
In this study, we used β-TCP. A small amount of β-TCP were visible and
surrounded with connective tissue in this histologic specimen. A lesser newly
formed bone was found only in the proximity of the base of bone defects,
originating from the pre-existing bone. There was no evidence of osseointegration
at the grafted area. Implant-bone interface below the defects showed osseointegration
with no signs of inflammation. Zerbo et al. (2001) showed considerable replacement
of the bone substitute by bone and bone marrow. In biopsy at 9.5 months of the
mandible, 34% of the biopsy consisted of mineralized bone tissue and 29% of
remaining β-TCP, while the biopsy at 8 months after sinus floor augmentation
consisted of 20% mineralized bone and 44% remaining β-TCP. This report
suggest that this graft material, possibly by virtue of its porosity and chemical
nature, may be a suitable bone substitute that can biodegradable and be replaced
by new mineralizing bone tissue. β-TCP proved to be resorbable in 6 months
without interfering with the new bone matrix formation, but it did not enhance
spontaneous bone regeneration in an infrabony defects (Trisi, 2003). New bone
- 17 -
formation most likely occurred from apical wound margin in dehiscence defect.
Therefore, we expected that evaluation of rapid bone healing could be avaliable
within a 12 weeks healing period of dehiscence defects in beagle dogs. In this
study, most remnants of β-TCP granules in the dehiscence defects were
surrounded with connective tissue. Small amount of newly formed bone tissue
was observed at the base of the bone defects, originating from pre-existing bone.
No signs of acute inflammation were observed on the unexposed implant surface. Sites
treated with chitosan membrane-only showed limited bone formation similar to control
sites. The membrane was expected to stablize the β-TCP and contribute to their
initial fixation. Some amount of bone formation was observed on sites treated with β
-TCP+membrane or autogenous bone+β-TCP+membrane. Varying amounts of
vertical bone growth were observed in the histological analysis. However, bone
regeneration never reached the shoulder of the implants in the buccal aspect. The
use of β-TCP did not appear to provide more bone to implant contact and new
bone formation. We feel that more evidence for new bone formation from β-TCP
grafting materials may be needed. There was no observation of autogenous bone,
that was already resorbed and maybe replaced with new bone formation.
Premature exposure of non-resorbable and resobable membranes leads to
extensive reorption of bone graft and lack of continuity between the graft and the
recipient bed (Donos et al. 2002). Exposure does not necessarily lead to a
complete failure of the treatment, but it hampers the predictability of positive
outcomes (Gotfredsen et al. 1993; Lang et al. 1994; Warrer et al. 1991).
Obviously, the use of grafting materials seemed to compensate for the lack of
- 18 -
stiffness of the chitosan membrane.
Sites with early wound exposure showed signs of acute inflammation and extensive
bone loss with little to no new bone formation. The clinical significance of having
exposed implant threads was evaluated in a retrospective study by Lekholm et
al. (1996). These authors reported that a few exposed threads would not have
adverse effects on the overall long term prognosis of an implant. In our study,
it was difficult to see new bone to implant surface contact in spite of
oxidized titanium surface implants. Dahlin et al. (1995) showed that peri-implant
dehiscence defects in human with mean depth of 4.7mm treated with barrier
membranes had 3.6mm of new bone formation. Becker et al. (1995) in an
animal study using 5mm dehiscence defects reported 4.2mm of bone formation
in membrane-only cases, 3.8mm in membrane-DFDB cases, and 5mm in
membrane-autograft cases, suggesting negative effect of DFDB in new bone
formation. Cho et al. (1998) showed that peri-implant dehiscence defects
treated with barrier membrane and DFDB had larger area of new bone
formation, while the rate of new bone formation was lower compared to
membrane-only cases suggesting possible delaying of healing from DFDB.
Simion et al. (1994, 1998) using miniscrews reported 3-4mm of new bone
formation using membrane-only. This result differs from the result of the
present study. Possible explanation is, first, the difference in healing period.
The present study used 12 weeks while Simion et al. used more than 9-11
months. Second, miniscrews of 1.3mm diameter may offer better healing
potential compared to relatively larger 3.3mm implant fixtures. Martin et al.
- 19 -
(1998) reported that membrane-bone graft therapy and TR-GTAM therapy for
space provision were effective in increasing the bone regeneration. They also
showed that exposure of membrane resulted in marked decrease in bone
formation, and resorbable membranes showed less amount of new bone
formation compared to non-resorbable membranes. Also, if exposed, an
installed membrane can cause inflammation around the wound. Finally, the
success of the operation is subject to the influence of other factors such as
the overall condition of the patient, the state of oral hygiene, smoking, the
material and location of the membrane, the extent of gingival recession, the
operator's efficiency, and the like. Moses et al. (2005) compared clinical results of
premature exposure of various membranes. Premature exposure of membranes used
in GBR results in decreased bone formation. Premature exposure of membranes and
subsequent and consequent exposure of implants result in impaired bone healing.
When exposed, exposed portion of resorbable membranes is completely resorbed in
3-4 weeks. Bioabsorbable membranes rapidly dis integrate when exposed to the oral
environment, resulting in a shortened barrier function (Machtei 2001). Plaque
contamination, therefore, may be less of a factor compared to exposed non-resorbable
membranes, which may be considered a clinical advantage. Tissue tention may result
from the additional space underneath the gingival tissue, and barrier membrane is
frequently exposed where the tention from suturing is the greatest. Incision method
and suturing method to lessen this problem are required. Initiation of membrane
resorption is ideally 8 weeks after placement considering the maturation of
newly formed bone. Chitosan membranes in the present study were frequently
- 20 -
exposed prematurely, and more studies are needed to ascertain whether
chitosan membrane itself is a factor in this premature wound exposure.
In the present study, chitosan membrane remnants were observed even after
12 weeks, suggesting that barrier effect is maintained for sufficient period of
time.
Clinically, the average initially exposed implant surface is larger, and
incomplete wound closure is prevalent compared to the long term delayed
implants (Zitzmann et al. 1997). Of course, the defects were surgically created
dehiscence defects which could exhibit a different wound healing than that seen
in naturally occurring defects. We used the dehiscence defects design that was
surgically created around implant (3×4mm) to mimic small amount of exposed
implant thread. Such defect design of the present experiment may result in the
collapse of chitosan membrane, and more studies are needed to provide sufficient
rigidity to the chitosan membranes. Thin formation trabecular bone along implant
is easily destructive when inflammation is exists around implant. So We need
bone grafts materials in the use of membranes for space making.
In summary, Results from this limited animal study demonstrated that a small
amount of new bone formation in β-TCP was observed. There was no significant
difference in new bone formation between Group 1 (Chitosan membrane) and
control defects. Most of the residual graft particles adjacent to the implant, were
found embeded in connective tissue. There was a slight difference in the amount
of new bone formation between sites grafted with autogenous bone and β-TCP.
The new bone may be the result of dense connective tissue reinforced by the
- 21 -
bone graft rather than replacement of the graft with true bone (Carpio et al.
2000). Past studies indicated that all guided bone regeneration procedures (GBR
alone and GBR/graft combination) equally produced the greatest amount of
clinical 'hard tissue fill' by bone graft alone (Hṻṻṻṻrzeler et al 1995,1997). The
results in this study were obtained with dehiscence defect morphology.
Dehiscence defects treated without membrane and space-making GBR material
may result in bone resorption. More studies on rigidity reinforcement of chitosan
membrane may be needed. We feel that additional studies should be undertaken
to examine the long term use of grafting materials adjacent to the implant surface
which were used in this studies. It is concluded that a chitosan membrane
enhanced bone regeneration, in particular in conjunction with the use of grafting
materials.
- 22 -
V. Conculsion
The aim of this study was to histologically evaluate and compare the healing
of the dehiscence defects using chitosan membrane, autogenous bone, and β
-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) around submerged oxidized titanium surface dental
implant. Sixteen oxidized titanium surface dental implants were used. Defects
were then grafted with either combination of autogenous bone, β-TCP and chitosan
membrane or not filled (control). The experimental animals were sacrificed 12
weeks after implant placement.
Result from this limited study demonstrated followings;
1. Limited amount of new bone formation was observed in control group with
unexposed membrane.
2. Slightly greater amount of bone formation was observed on sites treated with β
-TCP+membrane or autogenous bone+β -TCP+membrane compared to control
group.
3. Sites with early wound exposure showed signs of acute inflammation and limited
amount of new bone formation was observed regardless of membranes or bone
substitutes used.
4. Remnants of Chitosan membrane and β -TCP encapsulated with connective tissue
- 23 -
were observed during experimental periods.
These results suggest that further studies are needed on membrane rigidity and
infection control for space maintenance underneath the membrane and bone
substitutes in the treatment of dehiscence defects.
- 24 -
VI. References
Artzi Z, Zohar R, Tal H. Preiodontal and peri-implant bone regeneration: Clinical
and histologic observations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:
63-73,1997.
Baldock WT, Hutchens LH Jr, McFall Jr,et al. An evaluation of tricalcium
phosphate implants in human periodontal osseous defects of two patients.
J Periodontol 56: 1-7, 1985.
Becker W, Becker B, Guided tissue regeneration for implants placed into
extraction sockets and for implant dehiscences: Surgical technique and case
reports. Int J Periodont Reatorative Dent 10: 377-387, 1990.
Becker W, Becker BE, Handlesman M, Celleti R, Ochsenbein G, Hardwick R,
Langer B. Bone formation at dehisced dental implants sites treated with
implant augmentation material: A pilot study in dogs. Int J Periodontics
Resrorative Dent 10: 93-101, 1990.
Becker, W., Becker, B.E & McGuire, M,K. Localized ridge augumentation using
absorbable pins and ePTFE barrier membranes: A new surgical technique.
Case reports. Int J Periodontics Resrorative Dent 14 : 48-61,1994.
Becker W, Dahlin C, Becker BE, Lekhilm U, Steenberghe D, Higuchi K, Kultje
C. The use of e-PTFE barrier membranes for bone promotion around
implants placed into extraction sockets: A prospective multicenter study. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9: 31-40, 1994.
- 25 -
Becker W, Lynch S, Lekholm U, Becjer B, Caffesse R, Donath K, et al. A
comparison of e-PTFE membranes alone or in combination with platelet-
derived growth factor and insulin like growth factor-1 or demineralized
freeze-dried bone in promoting bone formation around immediate extraction
socket implants. J Periodontol 63: 929-940, 1992.
Becker W, Schenk R, Higuchi K, Lekholm U, Becker BE. Variation in bone
regeneration adjacent to implants augmented with membranes alone or with
demineralized freezed -dried bone or autologus bone grafts: A study in
dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 10: 143-154,1995.
Becker W, Urist M, Becker BE, Jackson W, Perry DA, Bartold M,et al. Clinical and
histologic observations of sites implanted with intraoral autologus bone grafts
or allografts. 15 human case reports. J Periodontol 67: 1025-1033, 1996.
Buser D, Dahlin CH, Schenk RK. Guided bone regeneration in implants
dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 101-136, 1994.
Buser D., Bragger U., Lang N.P., Nyman S.: Regeneration and enlargement
of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration. Clin. Oral Implants.
Res 1:22-32.1990.
Caffesse RG, Nasjleti CE, Morrison EC, Sanchez R : Guided tissue regeneration :
Comparison of bioabsorbable and non bioabsorbable membranes. Histologic
and histometric stugy in dogs. J Periodontol 1994 : 65 : 583-591.
Carpio L, Loza J, Lynch S, Genco R. Guided bone regeneration around
endosseous implants with anorganic bovine bone mineral. A randomized
controlled trial comparing bioabsorbable versus non- resorbable barriers. J
Periodontol 71: 1743-1749, 2000
- 26 -
Caton J, Greenstein G, Zappa U: Synthetic bioabsorbable barrier for regeneration in
human periodontal defects. J Periodontol 1994:65: 1037-1045.
Cho KS, Choi SH, Han KH, Chai JK, Wikesjo UME, Kim CK. Alveloar bone
formation at dental implant dehiscence defects following guided bone
regeneration and xenogeneic freeze-dried demineralized bone matrix. Clin
Oral impl Res 9: 419-428, 1998.
Cortellini P, Prato GP, Tonetti MS; Periodontal regeneration on human intrabony
defects with bioresorbable membranes. A controlled clinical trial. J
Periodontol. 67;217-223, 1996.
Covani U, Cornelini R, Barone A. Bucco-lingual bone remodeling around implants
placed into immediate extraction sockets: A case series. J Periodontol
74: 268-273, 2003.
Dahlin C., Lekholm U., Becker W., Becker B., Higuchi K., Callens A., van
Steenberghe D.: Treatment of fenestration and dehiscence bone defects
around oral implants using the guided tissue regeneration technique: A
prospective Multicenter study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 10:312-
318. 1995.
Dahlin C, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Linde A, Nyman S. Generation of new bone
around titanum implants using a membrane technique: An experimental
study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 4: 19-25, 1989.
Donos,N., Kostopoulos,L. & Karrin,T. Alveolar ridge augmentation using a
resorbable copolymer membrane and autogenous bone grafts. An
experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 13;203-213,2002.
- 27 -
Furusawa T, Kazuaki M. Osteoconductive properties and efficacy resorabable
bioactive glass as a bone-grafting material. Implant Dent 6: 93-101,
1997.
Gotfredesen K, Nimb L, Hjorting- Hansen E. Immediate implant placement using
a biodegradable barrier, polyhydroxybutyrate-hydroxyvalerate reinforced
with polyglatin 910. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implnats
Res 1994 :5 : 83-91.
Hall EE, Meffert RM, Hermann JS, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL. Comparison of
Bioactive glass to DFDB in the treatment of intrabony defects around
implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 70: 526-535, 1999.
Hockers T, Abensur D, Valentini P, Legrand R, Hammerle CHF. The combined
of use of bioresorbable membranes and xenografts or autografts of
bone defects around implants. A study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral
Implants Res 10 : 487-498, 1999.
Hurzeler MB, Quinones CR, Morrison EC, Caffesse RG. Treatment of peri-implantitis
using guided bone regeneration and bone grafts, alone or in combination,
in beagle dogs. Part I: Clnical findings and histologic observation. Int J
Oral Maxillofac implnats 10: 474-484, 1995.
Hurzeler MB, Quinones CR, Schupback P, Morrison EC, Caffesse RG.
Treatment of peri-implantitis using guided bone regeneration and
bone grafts, alone or in combination, in beagle dogs. Part 2:
Histologic findings. Int J Oral Maxillofac implnats 12: 168-175,
1997.
- 28 -
Hutmacher D, Hurzeler MB, Schliephake H. A review of material properties of
biodegradable and bioresorbable polymers and devices for GTR and
GBR applications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11: 667-678, 1996.
Ito M.: In vitro properties of a chitosan-bonded hydroxyapatite bone filling
paste, Biomaterials, 12: 41-45, 1991.
Johnson MW, Sullivan SM, Rohrer M, Collier M. Regeneration of peri- implnat
intrabony defects using Perioglass : A pilot study in rabbits. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 12: 835-839, 1997.
Jovanovic SA, Spiekermann H, Richter EJ. Bone regeneration around titanum
dental implants in dehisced defect sites. A clinical study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 7: 233-245, 1992.
Jovanovic, S.A., Spiek, R.K., Orsini, M. & Kenney, E.B. Supracrestal bone
formation around dental implants: An experimental dog study. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Implants 10: 23-31, 1995.
Klokkevold P.R., Fukayama H., Sung E.C. and Bertolami C.N.: The effect
of chitosan (poly-N-acetyl glucosamine) on lingual hemostasis in
heparinized rabbits, J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 57: 49-52, 1999.
Laurell I, Falk H, Fornell J, Johaed G, Gotlow j : Clinical use of bioresorbable
matrix barrier in guided tissue regeneration theapy : Case series. J
Periodontol 65 : 967-975, 1994 .
Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: Surgical and
restorative advantages. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 9: 333-343,
1989.
- 29 -
Lee, Y.M., Park, Y.J., Lee, S.J., Ku, Y., Han, S.B., Klokkevold, P.R. and Chung,
C.P. The Bone Regenerative Effects of Platelet-Derived Growth
Factor-BB Delivered with a chitosn/Tricalcium Phosphate Sponge Carrier.
Journal of Periodontology 2000; 71:418-4.
Lekholm U, Sennerby L, Roos J, Becker W. Soft tissue and marginal bone
conditions at osseointegrated implants that have exposed threads: A
5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11: 599-
604, 1996.
Low SB, King CJ, Krieger J. An evaluation of bioactive ceramic in the treatment
of periodontal osseous defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 17:
359-361, 1997.
Machtei,E.E. The effect of membrane exposure on the outcome of regenerative
procedures in human; a meta-analysis. J Periodontology 72;512-516,
2001.
Madihally,S.V., Howard W.T. Mattew. Porous chitosan scaffolds for tissue
engineering. Biomaterials20:1133-1142, 1999.
Martin L., Christof P.,Clemens K.,Walter A. Treatment of peri-implant defects
with guided bone regeneration: A comparative clinical study with various
membranes and bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
13;639-646,1998.
Mellonig J.T,Nevin M.: Guided bone regeneration of bone defects associated
with implants: An Evidence-Based Outcome Assessment. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 5:168-185.1995.
- 30 -
Mellonig J.T, Triplett R.G.: Guided tissue regeneration and endosseous dental
implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 13:109-119. 1993.
Merten HA, Wiltfang J, Grohmann U, Hoenig JF. Intraindividual comparative
animal study of alpha- and beta-tricalcium phosphate degradation in
conjunction with simultaneous insertion of dental implants. J Craniofac
Surg 12(1): 59-68, 2001.
Moses O, Pitaru S, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE. Healing of dehiscence-type defects in
implants placed together with different barrier membranes: a comparative
clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. Apr;16(2):210-9, 2005.
Muzzarelli R., Biagini G., Bellardini M., Simonelli L., Castaldini C. and
Fratto G.: Osteoconduction exerted by methylpyrrolidinone chitosan
used in dental surgery, Biomaterials, 14: 39-43, 1993.
Nery EB, Lynch KL, Hirthe WM, et al. Bioceramic implants in surgically
produced infrabony defects. J Periodontol 46: 328-347, 1975.
Nevins, M. & Melloing, J.T. Enhancement of the damaged edentulous ridge to
receive dental implants: A combination of allograft and the Gore-Tex
membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 12: 96-111,1992.
Nevin M., Mellonig J.T: The advantages of localized ridge augmentation
prior to implant placement: A staged event. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 14:97-111,1994.
Nkenke E, Schlegel A, Schultze-Mosgau S, Neukam FW, Wiltfang J. The
endoscopically controlled osteotome sinus floor elevation: a preliminary
prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17(4): 557-566, 2002.
- 31 -
Nyman S, Lang NP, Buser D, Bragger U. Bone regeneration adjacent to titanum
dental implants using guided tissue regeneration: A report of two cases.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5: 9-14, 1990.
Palmer R., Floyd P.,Smith B.,Johansson C.,Albrektsson T. Healing of implant
dehiscence defects with and without expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
membranes:a controlled clinical and histological study. Clin Oral Impl
Res 5;98-104,1994.
Park J.S., Choi S.H., Moon I.S., Choi K.S., Chai J.K., Kim C.K. Eight-week
histological analysis on the effect of chitosan on surgically created
one-wall intrabony defects in beagle dogs. J Clin. Periodontol. 30;443-
454. 2003.
Palti A, Hoch T. A concept for the treatment of various dental bone defects.
Implant Dent 11(1): 73-8, 2002.
Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M. Histologic observations on 230 retrived dental
implants: 8 years' experience (1989-1996). J Periodontol 69: 178-184,
1998.
Pitaru S, Tal H, Soldinger M, Grosskopf A, Noff M : Partial regeneration of
periodontal tissue using collagen barriers. Initial observations in the
canine. J Periodontol 59 : 380-386,1988.
Sapelli P.L., Baldassare V., Muzzarelli R. and Emanuelli M.: Chitosan in
dentistry, Chitin in nature and technology. 507-512, 1986.
Shanaman R.H.: A retrospective study of 237 sites treated consecutively
with guided tissue regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
14(4):292-301.1994.
- 32 -
Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D. A comparative study of the
effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure
during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14 :
167-180, 1994.
Simion, M., Trisi, P & Piattelli, A Vertical ridge augmentation using a
membrane technique associated with osseointegrated implants. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 14: 496-511.1994.
Simion M., Jovanovic S.A., Trisi .P, Scarano A., Piattelli A. : Vertical ridge
augmentation around dental implants using a membrane technique
and autogenous bone or allografts in humans. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 18(1):8-23. 1998.
Simion M, Scarano A. Gionso L. Piattelli A. Guided bone regeneration using
resorbable and nonresorbable membranes : A comparative histologic
study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 11 : 735-742, 1996.
Simion M, Trisi P. Maglion M. Piattelli A. A preliminary report on a method for
studying the permeability of e-PTFE membrane to bacteria in vitro; A
scanning electron microscopic and histological study. J Periodontol 65 :
755-761, 1994.
Simon M, Misitano U, Gionso L, Salvato A. Treatment of dehescences and
fenestrations around dental implants using resorbable and nonresorbable
membranes associated with bone autografts: A comparative clinical
study. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 12: 159-167, 1997.
- 33 -
Trisi P, Rao W, Rebaudi A, Fiore P. Histologic effect of pure-phase beta-
tricalcium phosphate on bone regeneration in human artificial jaw bone
defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23(1): 69-77, 2003.
Vicente JC, Lopez-Arranz E, Lopez-Arranz JS. Tissue regeneration in bone
defects adjacent to endosseous implnats: An experimental pilot
study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20: 41-49, 2000.
Von Arx T, Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D.
Lateral ridge augmentation and implant placement: an experimental
study evaluating implant osseointegration in different augmentation
materials in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(3):
343-54, 2001.
Werbitt M.J., Goldberg P.V.: The immediate implants: Bone preservation and
bone regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 12: 207-217.
1992.
YJ Yeo, DW Jeon, CS Kim, SH Choi, KS Cho, CK Kim, The Effects of
Chitosan nonwoven membrane on Periodontal Healing of Surgically
Created One-Wall Intrabony Defects in Beagle Dogs J Biomedical
Materals & Research Part B . 72B(1),86-93; 2005.
Zablotsky M, Meffert R, Caudill R, Evans G. Histological and clinical comparisons
of guided tissue regeneration on dehisced hydroxyapatite- coated and
titanum endosseous implants surfaces. Int J Oral Maillofac implants 6:
294-303, 1991.
- 34 -
Zerbo IR, Bronckers AL, de Lange GL, van Beek GJ, Burger EH. Histology of
human alveolar bone regeneration with a porous tricalcium phosphate.
A report of two cases. Clin Oral Implants Res 12(4): 379-84, 2001.
Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Scharer P. Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in
combination with Bio-oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 12: 844-852, 1997.
- 35 -
Legends
Figure 2 : Photograph of Surgically created dehiscence defect adjacent dental
implant.
Figure 3 A, B : Photograph of the chitosan membrane only (Group 1, Left)
and β-TCP+chitosan membrane (Group 2, Right)
Figure 4 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Control, No treatment), Bone defect were completely
filled with connective tissue. There was a little amount of newly
formed bone near implant at the apical area of the defect. (original
magnification×10)
B: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing a little amount of new bone
formation and direct bone-to-implant contact at the bottom in spite
of small amount.(original magnification×20)
C: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing cervical area of the lingual side
of implant. CT fibers perpendicular to implant surface. Direct
bone-to-implant contact at the threads.(original magnification×100)
Figure 5 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Control, No treatment), showing middle area of the
lingual side of implant. Direct bone-to-implant contact at the
threads.(original magnification×100)
- 36 -
B: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing vertical oriented osteoblast(OB)
near the threads of the lingual side of implant. Direct bone-to
-implant contact. (original magnification×200)
C: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing osteocyte(OC) far from implant.
(original magnification×200)
Figure 6 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Control, No treatment), Bone defect were completely
filled with connective tissue. Implant-to-soft tissue interface. vertical
oriented CT fibers. Separation from implant surface is an artifact.
(original magnification×100)
B: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Control, No treatment), showing a direct bone-
to-implant contact at the bottom in spite of small amount. (original
magnification×200)
Figure 7 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 1, the chitosan membrane only), There was small
amount of newly formed bone near implant at the apical area of the
defect. (original magnification×20)
B: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing chitosan membrane remnants
(RC) with connective tissue and fibrous tissue above new bone and
a little amount of new bone formation near the surface of dental
implant. (original magnification×100)
- 37 -
Figure 8 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 1, the chitosan membrane only), showing
chitosan membrane remnants(RC) with connective tissue and fibrous
tissue above new bone. There was small amount of newly formed
bone near implant at the apical area of the defect. (original
magnification×100)
B: Photomicrograph of fig A, showing vertical oriented osteoblast near
the surface of dental implant. Separation from implant surface is an
artifact. (original magnification×200)
Figure 9 A: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 1, the chitosan membrane only), showing parallel
oriented osteoblast far from implant. Thick staining on osteoblast
surround blood vessel (original magnification×100)
B: Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 1, the chitosan membrane only), showing CT to
bone interface in the periosteum. (original magnification×200)
Figure 10 A : Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 2, β-TCP+chitosan membrane), showing
granules surrounded with connective tissue and chitosan membrane
remnants above new bone and a small amount of new bone
formation near the surface of dental implant. There was no evidence
of osseointegration at the grafted area. (original magnification×20)
- 38 -
B : Photomicrograph of fig A, showing chitosan membrane remnants
and granules surrounded with connective tissue above new bone.
(original magnification×100)
Figure 11 A : Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 2, β-TCP+chitosan membrane), showing
chitosan membrane remnants and granules surrounded with
connective tissue above new bone. (original magnification×100)
B : Photomicrograph of fig A, there was direct bone-to-implant contact
under chitosan membrane. (original magnification×100)
Figure 12 A : Photomicrograph of Bucco-lingual ground section at 12weeks after
implantation (Group 3, autogenous bone+β-TCP+ chitosan
membrane), New bone formation under autogenous bone and
chitosan membrane (original magnification×200).
B : Photomicrograph of another slide, showing new bone formation and
no obervation of chitosan membrane and β-TCP granules. Implant-
to-CT interface, parallel fiber. Separation from implant surface is an
artifact. (original magnification×100).
C : Photomicrograph of another slide, showing fibrous tissue between new
bone and the surface of dental implant. There were many
inflammatory cells between bone and implant. There was no
bone-to-implant contact (original magnification×20).
- 39 -
Figures
Figure 2 : Photograph of Surgically created dehiscence defect
adjacent dental implant.
A B
Figure 3-A, B : Photograph of the chitosan membrane only (Group 1, Left)
and β -TCP+chitosan membrane (Group 2, Right)
- 40 -
Histologic findings
A B C
Figure 4. Photomicrograph of Control
A B C
Figure 5. Photomicrograph of Control
- 41 -
A B
Figure 6. Photomicrograph of Control
A B
Figure 7. Photomicrograph of Group 1
- 42 -
A B
Figure 8. Photomicrograph of Group 1
A B
Figure 9. Photomicrograph of Group 1
- 43 -
A B
Figure 10. Photomicrograph of Group 2
A B
Figure 11. Photomicrograph of Group 2
- 44 -
A B C
Figure 12. Photomicrograph of Group 3
- 45 -
국문요약
임임임플플플란란란트트트의의의 열열열개개개형형형 결결결손손손부부부에에에서서서 골골골유유유도도도재재재생생생에에에 관관관한한한 조조조직직직학학학적적적 연연연구구구(Histomorphology of Guided Bone Regeneration on Dental Implant
Dehiscence Defects in Beagle dogs)
연세대학교 대학원 치의학과(지도 김 종 관 교수)
김 윤 식
치주염으로 인해 파괴되어 얇아진 치조골이나 발치 직후 즉시 식립한임플란트의 경우 자주 발생하는 열개형 골결손 부위에 β-tricalcium
Phosphate와 키토산 차단막의 사용에 따른 신생골조직의 형성양상을 관찰하였다 . 실험동물로는 18개월에서 24개월 사이의 15kg 정도 되는 성견을사용하였다 . 16개의 Oxidized Titanium surface implant가 사용되었으며 , 성견하악의 양측에 각각 2개씩 사용되었다 . 제1,2,3,4 소구치를 발치하고 편평한골면을 형성한뒤 8주후 straight fissure bur를 이용하여 3x4mm의 균일한 열개형 골결손부를 형성하였다 . 임플란트를 식립한후 판막을 바로 봉합한 것을 대조군 , 골결손부에 키토산 차단막을 피개한 것을 실험1군 , β-tricalcium
Phosphate를 축조하고 키토산 차단막을 피개한 것을 실험2군 , 자가골과 β
-tricalcium Phosphate를 축조한후 키토산차단막을 피개한 것을 실험3군으로하여 매식술 시행 12주후에 실험동물을 희생시켜 조직학적 소견을 관찰하
- 46 -
였다 .
1. 대조군에서 차단막이 노출되지 않은 경우에도 신생골 형성은 미미하였다
2. β-TCP와 차단막을 사용한 경우와 자가골과 β-TCP를 함께 차단막과 사용한 경우 대조군과 비교하여 좀더 많은 양의 신생골이 관찰된다 .
3. 조기노출되는 경우 , 염증상태의 발현과 함께 차단막 , 골대체물질의 사용에 관계없이 대조군과 비슷하게 신생골 형성은 미약하였다 .
4. 실험기간동안 키토산 차단막과 β-TCP는 완전히 흡수되지 않고 잔사가 일부 관찰되었다 .
이상의 결과로 미루어 볼때 열개형 골결손부의 치료에 있어서 공간유지를위한 차단막이나 골대체물질 사용시 강도와 감염방지에 대한 많은 연구가더 이루어져야 할것으로 사료된다 .
핵핵핵심심심 되되되는는는 말말말::: implant dehiscence defect, GBR, autogenous bone,
ββββ-tricalcium phosphate, chitosan membrane