Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The impact of surface roughness and permeability in hydroxyapatite bone regeneration membranes
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD). Maxillofacial Unit Halmstad, Region Halland, Halmstad, Sweden.
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Maxillofacial Unit Halmstad, Region Halland, Halmstad, Sweden.
Swerea, IVF, Mölndal, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 27, no 8, p. 1047-1054Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background One of the crucial aspects in guided bone regeneration is the space maintenance. This is normally created by a membrane, which should primarily be accepted by the surrounding tissues without causing any adverse reactions. The impact of surface topography, biological acceptance as well as permeability of these membranes has been carefully discussed in the literature. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate histologically the bone forming properties inside of hollow hydroxyapatite space-maintaining devices with different inner surfaces and different permeabilities in an animal calvaria model in vivo. Materials and methods A total of 36 hollow domes with three different designs made of hydroxyapatite were surgically attached to the skulls of rabbits. Group 1 had a moderately rough inner surface. Group 2 had a smooth inner surface. Group 3 had the same properties as Group 1 but had macroscopic holes on the top. The domes were left to heal for 12 weeks and were then processed for undecalcified ground sectioning. Histological evaluations were performed using a light microscope and scanning electron microscopy. The bone–implant contact (BIC) percentage along the device was calculated. Results The median percentage of BIC was higher for Group 1 compared with Group 2 (P = 0.004). Group 1 produced a larger median BIC compared with Group 3 (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Within the limits of this preclinical study, these findings suggest that a moderately rough inner surface of a ceramic membrane along with a non-permeable device produces more bone than a smooth inner surface.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2016. Vol. 27, no 8, p. 1047-1054
Keywords [en]
animal experiments, biomaterials, bone regeneration, guided tissue regeneration, surface chemistry
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15776DOI: 10.1111/clr.12717ISI: 000380958000018PubMedID: 26470994Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84946206475Local ID: 23854OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15776DiVA, id: diva2:1419298
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2024-09-03Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. On guided bone regeneration using ceramic membranes
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On guided bone regeneration using ceramic membranes
2016 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Regeneration of bone in the oral and maxillofacial region can beachieved with different techniques such as autologous bone grafts,bone substitutes and guided bone regeneration. Guided boneregeneration is defined as creating a space between the bone and itssurrounding tissues, using a barrier that allows new bone to migrateinto the space while preventing other cell types from interfering. Thebarrier material should be biocompatible, have suitable occlusiveproperties and be able to maintain the created space for boneregeneration. A wide range of different materials has been used.The general aim was to evaluate a novel method of guided boneregeneration using designed ceramic space maintaining devices onanimals and humans. An experimental rabbit model was used in studies I, II and III.60 different domes shaped as halfspheres were fixed with titaniumscrews to the skull bone of 30 rabbits. The domes had 5 differentcharacteristics; 1) Dense hydroxyapatite with a moderately roughinner surface (HA rough), 2) Dense hydroxyapatite with a smoothinner surface (HA smooth), 3) Microporous hydroxyapatite with amoderately rough inner surface (HA μ), 4) Dense hydroxyapatite witha moderately rough inner surface and macroscopic holes (HA holes)and 5) Zirconia with a moderately rough inner surface (Zirconia).The domes were left to heal for 12 weeks before the animals wereeuthanized and the results were analysed with histomorphology andmicro-CT. The results revealed that Zirconia with a moderately rough innersurface produced the largest amount of newly formed bone althoughthe results were difficult to interpret as the Zirconia domes weredifficult to X-ray because of the very dense nature of the material.In study IV, 3 patients had bone regeneration treatment with aZirconia barrier. Patient 1 had posterior maxillary bone deficiencyin a transverse direction. Patient 2 had anterior maxillary bonedeficiency in a vertical and transverse direction. Patient 3 hadposterior mandibular bone deficiency in a vertical direction. Basedon individual digital models, Zirconia membranes correspondingto the amount of bone intended to be regenerated were designedand manufactured. The Zirconia membranes, were attached tothe underlying bone with titanium screws and covered with theperiosteum and mucosa. After a mean healing time of 7 months themembranes were removed and dental implants were installed. The results showed new bone regeneration corresponding tothe design of the space maintained. None of the patients had anymajor complications aside from normal postoperative discomfort.According to evaluation with CBCT all patients gained new bone inthe desired and preoperatively planned region.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology, 2016. p. 135
Series
Doctoral Dissertation in Odontology
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-7692 (URN)20132 (Local ID)978-91-7104-676-5 (ISBN)978-91-7104-677-2 (ISBN)20132 (Archive number)20132 (OAI)
Note

Note: The papers are not included in the fulltext online.

Paper IV in dissertation as manuscript.

Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-03-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopushttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.12717/abstract

Authority records

Anderud, JonasJimbo, RyoAbrahamsson, PeterWennerberg, Ann

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Anderud, JonasJimbo, RyoAbrahamsson, PeterWennerberg, Ann
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 68 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf