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
. 2023 Feb;25(1):57-67.
doi: 10.1111/cid.13143. Epub 2022 Oct 12.

Immunohistochemical comparison of lateral bone augmentation using a synthetic TiO2 block or a xenogeneic graft in chronic alveolar defects

Minh Khai Le Thieu  1   2 , Sabine Stoetzel  2 , Maryam Rahmati  1 , Thaqif El Khassawna  2 , Anders Verket  3 , Javier Sanz-Esporrin  4 , Mariano Sanz  4 , Jan Eirik Ellingsen  5 , Håvard Jostein Haugen  1
Affiliations

Immunohistochemical comparison of lateral bone augmentation using a synthetic TiO2 block or a xenogeneic graft in chronic alveolar defects

Minh Khai Le Thieu et al. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate osteogenic markers and alveolar ridge profile changes in guided bone regeneration (GBR) of chronic noncontained bone defects using a nonresorbable TiO2 block.

Materials and methods: Three buccal bone defects were created in each hemimandible of eight beagle dogs and allowed to heal for 8 weeks before GBR. Treatment was assigned by block randomization: TiO2 block: TiO2 -scaffold and a collagen membrane, DBBM particulates: Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and a collagen membrane, Empty control: Only collagen membrane. Bone regeneration was assessed on two different healing timepoints: early (4 weeks) and late healing (12 weeks) using several immunohistochemistry markers including alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), osteopontin, osteocalcin, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase, and collagen type I. Histomorphometry was performed on Movat Pentachrome-stained and Von Kossa/Van Gieson-stained sections. Stereolithographic (STL) models were used to compare alveolar profile changes.

Results: The percentage of α-SMA and osteopontin increased in TiO2 group after 12 weeks of healing at the bone-scaffold interface, while collagen type I increased in the empty control group. In the defect area, α-SMA decreased in the empty control group, while collagen type I increased in the DBBM group. All groups maintained alveolar profile from 4 to 12 weeks, but TiO2 group demonstrated the widest soft tissue contour profile.

Conclusions: The present findings suggested contact osteogenesis when GBR is performed with a TiO2 block or DBBM particulates. The increase in osteopontin indicated a potential for bone formation beyond 12 weeks. The alveolar profile data indicated a sustained lateral increase in lateral bone augmentation using a TiO2 block and a collagen membrane, as compared with DBBM and a collagen membrane or a collagen membrane alone.

Keywords: animal experimentation; bone regeneration; bone substitutes; guided tissue regeneration; immunohistochemistry; xenografts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Haugen and Ellingsen hold patents for the technology for the TiO2 bone graft substitute (EP Patent 2121053, US Patent 9629941 US Patent App. 14/427901, US Patent App. 14/427683, and US Patent App. 14/427854). The rights for these patents are shared between the University of Oslo and Corticalis AS. Haugen and Ellingsen are shareholders and board members of Corticalis AS. The other authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Timeline of the study design. (B) Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure on noncontained defects. Showing the anterior defect with deproteinized bovine bone mineral particulates, middle defect with a TiO2 block secured with a fixation screw and the empty posterior defect. Cortical perforations were performed at all recipient sites. All sites were covered with a collagen membrane stabilized by pin fixation.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Illustrations of the different regions of interest (ROIs) analyzed. ROItot showing a TiO2 sample with osteocalcin stain, ROI400 μm showing a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) sample with collagen stain and ROI40 μm showing a negative control sample with osteopontin stain. Area with graft material was excluded. Box plots with statistical significance denoted by asterisks: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. α‐SMA, alpha‐smooth muscle actin
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
(A) Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particulates seen as light green, mineralized bone in dark yellow, and unmineralized collagen in bright yellow. Percentage of collagen in region of interest (ROI)tot (B), ROI400 μm (C) and ROI40 μm (D). Statistical significance denoted by asterisks: *p < 0.05. 4 W, 4 weeks; 12 W, 12 weeks
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
(A) TiO2 group. Mineralized bone, including deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particulates, stained black by Von Kossa/Van Gieson, while TiO2 appeared dark gray to black. An extracellular matrix is stained pink within the TiO2 scaffold and presents less intensity than the surrounding soft tissue and epithelium. Some voids from fracture and tearing of the scaffold are seen. Note migrated DBBM particulates at the bottom of the defect. Percentage of extracellular matrix in region of interest (ROI)tot (B), ROI400 μm (C), and ROI40 μm (D). Statistical significance denoted by asterisks: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
(A) Osteoclast in a Howship lacuna, (B) Double asterisks denote statistical significance (p < 0.01). DBBM, deproteinized bovine bone mineral; TRAP, tartrate‐resistant acid phosphatase
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
(A) Superimposed stereolithographic images of TiO2 sample 4 weeks after guided bone regeneration. The baseline in purple and 4 weeks healing in green. Area difference in ROI is illustrated in yellow. Shown distance from the alveolar crest divides the top, mid, and low segments. (B) Area differences for alveolar contour. Statistical significance denoted by asterisks: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. DBBM, deproteinized bovine bone mineral
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017;125(5):315‐337. doi:10.1111/eos.12364 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007;78(3):377‐396. doi:10.1902/jop.2007.060048 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Araujo M, Linder E, Wennstrom J, Lindhe J. The influence of Bio‐Oss collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(2):123‐135. - PubMed
    1. Hammerle CH, Olah AJ, Schmid J, et al. The biological effect of natural bone mineral on bone neoformation on the rabbit skull. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(3):198‐207. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080306.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmid J, Hammerle CH, Fluckiger L, et al. Blood‐filled spaces with and without filler materials in guided bone regeneration. A comparative experimental study in the rabbit using bioresorbable membranes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(2):75‐81. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080201.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources