Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 30;35(1):3-9.
doi: 10.54589/aol.35/1/3.

Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone and native bone. A preclinical study

Victor F Quiroz  1 , Júlia R Lima  1 , Felipe E Pinotti  2 , Rosemary Ac Marcantonio  2 , Elcio Marcantonio  2 , Guilherme Jpl Oliveira  3
Affiliations

Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone and native bone. A preclinical study

Victor F Quiroz et al. Acta Odontol Latinoam. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

The aim of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of implants placed in rat tibia sites grafted with Deproteinized Bovine Bone (DBB) and Native Bone (NB). Twenty-eight rats were divided into two groups according to the type of substrate in which the implants were to be placed: NB - implants placed in native bone; DBB - implants placed in areas grafted with DBB. In the DBB group, the bone defect was made and filled with the bone substitute 60 days before placing the implant. The animals were euthanized 15 or 45 days after implant placement. Osseointegration was assessed by the removal torque, volume of mineralized tissues around the implants (BV/TV), bone-implant contact (%BIC), and bone between threads (%BBT). The implants placed in NB presented higher removal torque (8.00 ± 1.26 Ncm vs. 2.33 ± 0.41 Ncm at 15 days and 22.00 ± 2.44 Ncm vs. 4.00 ± 1.41 Ncm at 45 days), higher %BV/TV (47.92 ± 1.54% vs. 33.33 ± 4.77% at 15 days and 70.06 ± 0.91% vs. 39.89±5.90%at 45 days), higher %BIC (39.68 ± 5.02% vs. 9.12 ± 5.56% at 15 days and 83.23 ± 4.42% vs. 18.81 ± 7.21% at 45 days), and higher %BBT (34.33 ± 5.42% vs. 13.24 ± 8.72% at 15 days and 82.33 ± 3.13% vs. 22.26 ± 8.27% at 45 days) than the implants placed in DBB grafted areas. The degree of osseointegration was lower in implants placed in the area grafted with DBB than in NB in rat tibias.

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a osseointegração de implantes instalados em sítios enxertados com Osso Bovino Desproteinizado (DBB) e Osso Nativo (NB). Vinte e oito ratos foram alocados em dois grupos de acordo com o tipo de substrato onde os implantes foram colocados: NB - Implantes colocados em osso nativo; DBB - Implantes instalados em áreas enxertadas com DBB. No grupo DBB, o defeito ósseo foi confeccionado e preenchido com o substituto ósseo 60 dias antes da instalação do implante. Os animais foram sacrificados após 15 e 45 dias da colocação do implante. A osseointegração foi avaliada pelo torque de remoção, volume de tecidos mineralizados ao redor dos implantes (%BV/TV), contato direto do osso com o implante (%BIC), e área de osso entre roscas dos implantes (%BBT). Os implantes instalados em NB tiveram um maior torque de remoção (8.00 ± 1.26 Ncm vs. 2.33 ± 0.41 Ncm aos 15 dias e 22.00 ± 2.44 Ncm vs. 4.00 ± 1.41 Ncm aos 45 dias), ummaior%BV/TV (47.92 ±1.54% vs. 33.33 ± 4.77% aos 15 dias e 70.06 ± 0.91% vs. 39.89 ± 5.90% aos 45 dias), um maior %BIC (39.68 ± 5.02% vs. 9.12 ± 5.56% aos 15 dias e 83.23 ± 4.42% vs. 18.81 ± 7.21% aos 45 dias), e um maior %BBT (34.33 ± 5.42% vs. 13.24 ± 8.72% aos 15 dias e 82.33 ± 3.13% vs. 22.26 ± 8.27% aos 45 dias) que os implantes colocados nas áreas enxertadas com DBB. Implantes instalados em áreas enxertadas com DBB apresentaram menor osseointegração que os implantes instalados no osso nativo em tíbias de ratos.

Keywords: bone substitutes; dental implants; osseointegration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Representative images of the non-decalcified sections showing a better pattern of the osseointegration of implants placed in NB than of implants placed in DBB.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Guglielmotti MB, Olmedo DG, Cabrini RL. Research on implants and osseointegration. Periodontol 2000. 2019;79:178–189. doi: 10.1m/prd.12254. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:26–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Ostman PO, Cosyn J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: a review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontol. 2000;2014(66):153–87. doi: 10.1111/prd.12040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kraft B, Frizzera F, de Freitas RM, de Oliveira GJLP, et al. Impact of fully or partially guided surgery on the position of single implants immediately placed in maxillary incisor sockets: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:631–637. doi: 10.1111/cid.12941. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stumbras A, Krukis MM, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G. Regenerative bone potential after sinus floor elevation using various bone graft materials: a systematic review. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:548–558. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a42482. - DOI - PubMed