Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model

D. Joshua Cohen, Kayla M. Scott, Aniket N. Kulkarni, Jennifer S. Wayne, Barbara D. Boyan, Zvi Schwartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Due to bone loss, endosseous implants often require addition of a bone graft to support adequate primary fixation, bone regeneration, and osseointegration. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of autogenic and allogenic bone grafts when used during simultaneous insertion of the implant. Materials and Methods: 4-mm-diameter rabbit diaphyseal bone autografts or allografts (n = 16/group) with a 3.2-mm pre-drilled hole in the center were placed into a 4 mm defect in the proximal femur of 3.5 kg male New Zealand White rabbits. Machined 3.2 × 10 mm grit-blasted, acid-etched titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti6Al4V) implants were placed. Control implants were placed into progressively drilled 3.2-mm holes in the contralateral limbs. Post-insertion day 70, samples were analyzed by micro-CT and calcified histology, or by mechanical torque and push-out testing followed by decalcified histology. Results: Both grafts were integrated with the native bone. Micro-CT showed less bone volume (BV) and bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) in the allograft group, but histology showed no differences in BV or BV/TV between groups. Allograft lacked living cells, whereas autograft was cellularized. No difference was found in maximum removal torque between groups. Compressive loading at the graft-to-bone interface was significantly lower in allograft compared with autograft groups. Conclusions: There was less bone in contact with the implant and significantly less maximum compressive load in the allograft group compared with autograft. The allograft remained acellular as demonstrated by empty lacunae. Taken together, block allograft implanted simultaneously with an implant produces a poorer quality bone compared with autograft.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical oral implants research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Thigh
Rabbits
Transplants
Bone and Bones
Allografts
Autografts
Histology
Torque
Osseointegration
Bone Regeneration
Femur
Extremities
Acids

Keywords

  • animal experiments
  • bone implant interactions
  • bone substitutes
  • CT Imaging
  • guided tissue regeneration/bone regeneration
  • histopathology/host mechanisms
  • morphometric analysis
  • periodontology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model. / Cohen, D. Joshua; Scott, Kayla M.; Kulkarni, Aniket N.; Wayne, Jennifer S.; Boyan, Barbara D.; Schwartz, Zvi.

In: Clinical oral implants research, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cohen, D. Joshua ; Scott, Kayla M. ; Kulkarni, Aniket N. ; Wayne, Jennifer S. ; Boyan, Barbara D. ; Schwartz, Zvi. / Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model. In: Clinical oral implants research. 2019.
@article{23160cb01a514be6890cbf25dc44ab12,
title = "Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model",
abstract = "Objectives: Due to bone loss, endosseous implants often require addition of a bone graft to support adequate primary fixation, bone regeneration, and osseointegration. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of autogenic and allogenic bone grafts when used during simultaneous insertion of the implant. Materials and Methods: 4-mm-diameter rabbit diaphyseal bone autografts or allografts (n = 16/group) with a 3.2-mm pre-drilled hole in the center were placed into a 4 mm defect in the proximal femur of 3.5 kg male New Zealand White rabbits. Machined 3.2 × 10 mm grit-blasted, acid-etched titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti6Al4V) implants were placed. Control implants were placed into progressively drilled 3.2-mm holes in the contralateral limbs. Post-insertion day 70, samples were analyzed by micro-CT and calcified histology, or by mechanical torque and push-out testing followed by decalcified histology. Results: Both grafts were integrated with the native bone. Micro-CT showed less bone volume (BV) and bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) in the allograft group, but histology showed no differences in BV or BV/TV between groups. Allograft lacked living cells, whereas autograft was cellularized. No difference was found in maximum removal torque between groups. Compressive loading at the graft-to-bone interface was significantly lower in allograft compared with autograft groups. Conclusions: There was less bone in contact with the implant and significantly less maximum compressive load in the allograft group compared with autograft. The allograft remained acellular as demonstrated by empty lacunae. Taken together, block allograft implanted simultaneously with an implant produces a poorer quality bone compared with autograft.",
keywords = "animal experiments, bone implant interactions, bone substitutes, CT Imaging, guided tissue regeneration/bone regeneration, histopathology/host mechanisms, morphometric analysis, periodontology",
author = "Cohen, {D. Joshua} and Scott, {Kayla M.} and Kulkarni, {Aniket N.} and Wayne, {Jennifer S.} and Boyan, {Barbara D.} and Zvi Schwartz",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/clr.13544",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acellular mineralized allogenic block bone graft does not remodel during the 10 weeks following concurrent implant placement in a rabbit femoral model

AU - Cohen, D. Joshua

AU - Scott, Kayla M.

AU - Kulkarni, Aniket N.

AU - Wayne, Jennifer S.

AU - Boyan, Barbara D.

AU - Schwartz, Zvi

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objectives: Due to bone loss, endosseous implants often require addition of a bone graft to support adequate primary fixation, bone regeneration, and osseointegration. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of autogenic and allogenic bone grafts when used during simultaneous insertion of the implant. Materials and Methods: 4-mm-diameter rabbit diaphyseal bone autografts or allografts (n = 16/group) with a 3.2-mm pre-drilled hole in the center were placed into a 4 mm defect in the proximal femur of 3.5 kg male New Zealand White rabbits. Machined 3.2 × 10 mm grit-blasted, acid-etched titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti6Al4V) implants were placed. Control implants were placed into progressively drilled 3.2-mm holes in the contralateral limbs. Post-insertion day 70, samples were analyzed by micro-CT and calcified histology, or by mechanical torque and push-out testing followed by decalcified histology. Results: Both grafts were integrated with the native bone. Micro-CT showed less bone volume (BV) and bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) in the allograft group, but histology showed no differences in BV or BV/TV between groups. Allograft lacked living cells, whereas autograft was cellularized. No difference was found in maximum removal torque between groups. Compressive loading at the graft-to-bone interface was significantly lower in allograft compared with autograft groups. Conclusions: There was less bone in contact with the implant and significantly less maximum compressive load in the allograft group compared with autograft. The allograft remained acellular as demonstrated by empty lacunae. Taken together, block allograft implanted simultaneously with an implant produces a poorer quality bone compared with autograft.

AB - Objectives: Due to bone loss, endosseous implants often require addition of a bone graft to support adequate primary fixation, bone regeneration, and osseointegration. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of autogenic and allogenic bone grafts when used during simultaneous insertion of the implant. Materials and Methods: 4-mm-diameter rabbit diaphyseal bone autografts or allografts (n = 16/group) with a 3.2-mm pre-drilled hole in the center were placed into a 4 mm defect in the proximal femur of 3.5 kg male New Zealand White rabbits. Machined 3.2 × 10 mm grit-blasted, acid-etched titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti6Al4V) implants were placed. Control implants were placed into progressively drilled 3.2-mm holes in the contralateral limbs. Post-insertion day 70, samples were analyzed by micro-CT and calcified histology, or by mechanical torque and push-out testing followed by decalcified histology. Results: Both grafts were integrated with the native bone. Micro-CT showed less bone volume (BV) and bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) in the allograft group, but histology showed no differences in BV or BV/TV between groups. Allograft lacked living cells, whereas autograft was cellularized. No difference was found in maximum removal torque between groups. Compressive loading at the graft-to-bone interface was significantly lower in allograft compared with autograft groups. Conclusions: There was less bone in contact with the implant and significantly less maximum compressive load in the allograft group compared with autograft. The allograft remained acellular as demonstrated by empty lacunae. Taken together, block allograft implanted simultaneously with an implant produces a poorer quality bone compared with autograft.

KW - animal experiments

KW - bone implant interactions

KW - bone substitutes

KW - CT Imaging

KW - guided tissue regeneration/bone regeneration

KW - histopathology/host mechanisms

KW - morphometric analysis

KW - periodontology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074030725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074030725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/clr.13544

DO - 10.1111/clr.13544

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85074030725

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

ER -