Effect of rhPMP-2 coated implants on alveolar ridge augmentation in dogs

Chan-Kyung Park; Jong-Eun Kim; Ju-Hee Shin; Jae-Jun Ryu; Jung-Bo Huh; Sang-Wan Shin

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.3.202

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(3) > 1034627

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Kim, Shin, Ryu, Huh, and Shin: Effect of rhPMP-2 coated implants on alveolar ridge augmentation in dogs

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(3):202-208.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.3.202

Effect of rhPMP-2 coated implants on alveolar ridge augmentation in dogs

Chan-Kyung Park, DDS, Jong-Eun Kim, DDS, Ju-Hee Shin, MSD, DDS, PhD, Jae-Jun Ryu, MSD, DDS, PhD, Jung-Bo Huh, MSD, DDS, Sang-Wan Shin, MSD, DDS, PhD^∗

Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Institute of Clinical Dental Research, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Sang-Wan Shin Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Clinical Dental Reasearch, Korea University Guro Hospital, 97 Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, 152-703, Korea +82 2 2626 1922: e-mail, swshin@korea.ac.kr

Received 21 June 20106 July 2010 Accepted 7 July 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of rhPMP-2 coated implants on alveolar ridge augmentation in dogs.

Materials and methods

Six Beagle dogs were used in this study. Six 8.0 mm long anodized surface titanium implants were placed 5 mm into the mandibular alveolar ridge following 6 month of healing period after extraction. Each animal received three implants coated with rhBMP-2 and three uncoated control implants using the randomized split-mouth design. Radiographic examinations were undertaken i mmediately at implant placement (baseline), at weeks 4 and 8 after implant placement. The amount of bone augmentation was evaluated by measuring the distance from the uppermost point of the coverscrew to the marginal bone. Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values were measured i mmediately at implant placement and 8 weeks after implant placement. For the statistical analysis, Man-Whitney ranksum test and Wilcoxon signed rank test of SPSS 12.0 software were used (P = .05).

Results

The BMP group exhibited radiographic vertical bone augmentation about 0.6 ± 0.7 mm at 8 weeks later while controls showed bone loss about 0.4 ± 0.6 mm. There was significant difference among the rhBMP-2 group and controls in bone level change (P < .05). The ISQ values were significantly higher in the BMP-2 group than the control group at 8 weeks later (P < .05), while there was no significant difference at surgery.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, the rhBMP-2 coated on anodized implant could stimulate vertical alveolar bone augmentation, which may increase implant stability significantly on completely healed alveolar ridge. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:202-8)

Keywords: rhBMP-2, implant, Osseointegration, Implant stability, Bone augmentation

REFERENCES

1.Urist MR. Bone: formation by autoinduction. Science. 1965. 150:893–9.

2.Reddi AH. Bone and cartilage differentiation. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1994. 4:737–44.

3.Reddi AH. Role of morphogenetic proteins in skeletal tissue engineering and regeneration. Nat Biotechnol. 1998. 16:247–52.

4.Bostrom MP., Asnis P. Transforming growth factor beta in fracture repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998. 355(Suppl):S124–31.

5.Barnes GL., Kostenuik PJ., Gerstenfeld LC., Einhorn TA. Growth factor regulation of fracture repair. J Bone Miner Res. 1999. 14:1805–15.

6.Bessa PC., Casal M., Reis RL. Bone morphogenetic proteins in tissue engineering: the road from the laboratory to the clinic, part I (basic concepts). J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2008. 2:1–13.

7.Bessa PC., Casal M., Reis RL. Bone morphogenetic proteins in tissue engineering: the road from laboratory to clinic, part II (BMP delivery). J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2008. 2:81–96.

8.Chen D., Zhao M., Mundy GR. Bone morphogenetic proteins. Growth Factors. 2004. 22:233–41.

9.Hall J., Sorensen RG., Wozney JM., Wikesjo ¨ UM. Bone formation at rhBMP-2-coated titanium implants in the rat ectopic model. J Clin Periodontol. 2007. 34:444–51.

10.Wikesjo ¨ UM., Xiropaidis AV., Qahash M., Lim WH., Sorensen RG., Rohrer MD., Wozney JM., Hall J. Bone formation at recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2-coated titanium implants in the posterior mandible (Type II bone) in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2008. 35:985–91.

11.Leknes KN., Yang J., Qahash M., Polimeni G., Susin C., Wikesjo ¨ UM. Alveolar ridge augmentation using implants coated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: radiographic observations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008. 19:1027–33.

12.Simion M., Trisi P., Piattelli A. Vertical ridge augmentation using a membrane technique associated with osseointegrated implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994. 14:496–511.

13.Bessho K., Konishi Y., Kaihara S., Fujimura K., Okubo Y., Iizuka T. Bone induction by Escherichia coli - derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 compared with Chinese hamster ovary cell-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000. 38:645–9.

14.Hoar JE., Beck GH., Crawford EA., Resnik R. Prospective evaluation of crestal bone remodeling of a bone-density based dental implant system. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998. 19:17–24.

15.Esposito M., Hirsch JM., Lekholm U., Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998. 106:721–64.

Fig. 1.

Design of experimental Implant (unit: mm). The experimental implants had internal connection, coronal microthread and macrothread.

Fig. 2.

Diagram for installation site and depth on alveolar ridge of dog.

Fig. 3.

Implant surgery. A: Drilling, B: Implant placement, C: ISQ value measuring, D: Suture, E: 1 week after surgery, F: 8 week after surgery.

Fig. 4.

Measuring of marginal bone level.

Fig. 5.

ISQ measuring device (Ostell Mentor).

Fig. 6.

Periapical radiograph showing that implants coated with rhBMP-2 exhibited bone formation approaching the implant top, while there is no remarkable change of bone level on control implants.

Fig. 7.

Radiographic bone gain by group and observation interval.

Fig. 8.

Implant stability quotient (ISQ) value by group and observation interval (∗P < .05).

Fig. 9.

Failure of osseointegration of implant. A: At surgery, B: There is radiolucent halo on leftmost implant at 4 week after surgery, C: The radiolucent halo enlarged along almost all implant surface at 8 week after surgery.

Fig. 10.

Exposure of implant fixture. A: Exposure of 3 implants of control group, B: Exposure of one implant of BMP group.

Table 1.

Numbers of experimental dogs and implants

	BMP group	Control group
No. of implants	3	3
No. of dog	6	6
Total	18	18

Table 2.

Mean (± SD) radiographic bone gain (mm) by group and observation interval

	ΔWeek 4	ΔWeek 8	Bone gain change
BMP group	0.85 ± 0.72	0.59 ± 0.69∗	- 0.26 ± 0.47
Control group	- 0.14 ± 0.52	- 0.37 ± 0.62	- 0.24 ± 0.47

ΔWeek 4: difference between bone level at surgery and week 4 ΔWeek 8: difference between bone level at week 4 and week 8 Bone gain change: ΔWeek 8 - Δweek 4 Compared with control group (∗P < .05)

Table 3.

Implant stability quotient (ISQ) value by group and observation interval

	At surgery	At week 8	ISQ change
BMP group	69.59 ± 8.17	78.70 ± 3.38∗	9.11 ± 8.89∗
Control group	74.00 ± 4.45	74.27 ± 6.67	0.27 ± 8.57

At surgery: ISQ value at surgery At week 8: ISQ value at 8 week after surgery ISQ change: At week 8 - At surgery Compared with control group (∗P < .05)

TOOLS

Similar articles