Limits...
Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: First and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results.

Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Stuebinger S, Seitz O, Landes C, Kovács AF, Kirkpatrick CJ, Sader RA - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2013)

Bottom Line: Histologically, NB underwent a higher vascularization and induced significantly more tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive (TRAP-positive) multinucleated giant cells when compared with BO, which induced mainly mononuclear cells.No significant difference was observed in the extent of new bone formation between both groups.The clinical follow-up showed undisturbed healing of all implants in the BO-group, whereas the loss of one implant was observed in the NB-group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany ; REPAIR-Lab, Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Background: The present study was first to evaluate the material-specific cellular tissue response of patients with head and neck cancer to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute NanoBone (NB) in comparison with a deproteinized bovine bone matrix Bio-Oss (BO) after implantation into the sinus cavity.

Materials and methods: Eight patients with tumor resection for oral cancer and severely resorbed maxillary bone received materials according to a split mouth design for 6 months. Bone cores were harvested prior to implantation and analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. Implant survival was followed-up to 2 years after placement.

Results: Histologically, NB underwent a higher vascularization and induced significantly more tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive (TRAP-positive) multinucleated giant cells when compared with BO, which induced mainly mononuclear cells. No significant difference was observed in the extent of new bone formation between both groups. The clinical follow-up showed undisturbed healing of all implants in the BO-group, whereas the loss of one implant was observed in the NB-group.

Conclusions: Within its limits, the present study showed for the first time that both material classes evaluated, despite their induction of different cellular tissue reactions, may be useful as augmentation materials for dental and maxillofacial surgical applications, particularly in patients who previously had oral cancer.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

a) The histomorphometrical analysis of the total amount of material-adherent multinucleated giant cells, b) Associated with the analyzed bone substitute materials and both of its subforms: The tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive, c) TRAP-negative giant cells. */**/*** = statistical significance
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814660&req=5

Figure 6: a) The histomorphometrical analysis of the total amount of material-adherent multinucleated giant cells, b) Associated with the analyzed bone substitute materials and both of its subforms: The tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive, c) TRAP-negative giant cells. */**/*** = statistical significance

Mentions: The number of these cells within all parts of the implantation bed was related to 1 mm2 of the total area (number of cells/mm2). A significantly higher amount of multi-nucleated giant cells was observed in the implantation bed of NB-implanted sites than in the implantation bed of BO-implanted sites (***P > 0.001) (50.40 ± 7.16 vs. 16.37 ± 1.72 cells/mm2) [Figure 6a].


Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: First and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results.

Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Stuebinger S, Seitz O, Landes C, Kovács AF, Kirkpatrick CJ, Sader RA - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2013)

a) The histomorphometrical analysis of the total amount of material-adherent multinucleated giant cells, b) Associated with the analyzed bone substitute materials and both of its subforms: The tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive, c) TRAP-negative giant cells. */**/*** = statistical significance
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814660&req=5

Figure 6: a) The histomorphometrical analysis of the total amount of material-adherent multinucleated giant cells, b) Associated with the analyzed bone substitute materials and both of its subforms: The tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive, c) TRAP-negative giant cells. */**/*** = statistical significance
Mentions: The number of these cells within all parts of the implantation bed was related to 1 mm2 of the total area (number of cells/mm2). A significantly higher amount of multi-nucleated giant cells was observed in the implantation bed of NB-implanted sites than in the implantation bed of BO-implanted sites (***P > 0.001) (50.40 ± 7.16 vs. 16.37 ± 1.72 cells/mm2) [Figure 6a].

Bottom Line: Histologically, NB underwent a higher vascularization and induced significantly more tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive (TRAP-positive) multinucleated giant cells when compared with BO, which induced mainly mononuclear cells.No significant difference was observed in the extent of new bone formation between both groups.The clinical follow-up showed undisturbed healing of all implants in the BO-group, whereas the loss of one implant was observed in the NB-group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany ; REPAIR-Lab, Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Background: The present study was first to evaluate the material-specific cellular tissue response of patients with head and neck cancer to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute NanoBone (NB) in comparison with a deproteinized bovine bone matrix Bio-Oss (BO) after implantation into the sinus cavity.

Materials and methods: Eight patients with tumor resection for oral cancer and severely resorbed maxillary bone received materials according to a split mouth design for 6 months. Bone cores were harvested prior to implantation and analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. Implant survival was followed-up to 2 years after placement.

Results: Histologically, NB underwent a higher vascularization and induced significantly more tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive (TRAP-positive) multinucleated giant cells when compared with BO, which induced mainly mononuclear cells. No significant difference was observed in the extent of new bone formation between both groups. The clinical follow-up showed undisturbed healing of all implants in the BO-group, whereas the loss of one implant was observed in the NB-group.

Conclusions: Within its limits, the present study showed for the first time that both material classes evaluated, despite their induction of different cellular tissue reactions, may be useful as augmentation materials for dental and maxillofacial surgical applications, particularly in patients who previously had oral cancer.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus