Preview

Yakut Medical Journal

Advanced search

Efficiency of using autogenic bone in combination with a xenogenic bone material for guided bone tissue regeneration in an experiment

https://doi.org/10.25789/YMJ.2023.84.09

Abstract

Currently, the search for effective methods of reconstructive interventions aimed at increasing alveolar ridge height and thickness remains a pressing issue in dentistry. However, the results of studies on the comparative assessment of the effectiveness of the use of autogenic bone from various donor sites are extremely small and ambiguous. Aim. Substantiate the effectiveness of using the optimal composition of autogenic bone chips (ABC) and xenogenic bone material (XBM) taking into account the anatomical localization of the donor zone in guided bone regeneration (GBR) according to the data of microhemodynamics of the experiment. Research materials and methods. The object of the study in the research was 84 sexually mature male rabbits of the chinchilla breed weighing 2500-3200 g. The materials of Cardioplant LLC (Penza) with registration certificates: Xenogenous bone material (XBM) “Xenograft Mineral” (medical device registration certificate No. RZN 2015/3086 dated 16.09.2015) and bioresorbable membrane “BioPLATE Barrier” (medical device registration certificate No. RZN 2016/4808 dated 26.01.2021). A defect in the mandible area was formed in the animals under study, which was then filled with osteoplastic material. Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) was used to monitor the state of microhemodynamics of gingival tissues in the area of surgery using a laser analyzer of capillary blood flow "LAKK-02," (NPP "Lazma," Moscow). Results and discussion. It was established that within the first two weeks after the intervention, optimal rates of microcirculation recovery in the surgical area are characteristic of osteoplasty using a mixture of XBM (75%) and ABC (25%) from the oral donor zone. On the 14th day after the operation, capillary blood flow was stabilized, which was manifested by a decrease in the studied parameters in all observation groups. However, the normalization of microvessel functioning was not the same in the study groups. At the same time, the normalization of capillary blood flow was optimal in animals of subgroup 3 in group II, with the microcirculation indicator at the level of 20,59±1,18 perf. units, and its intensity at the level of 2,31±0,12 perf. units by the 14th day. Starting from the 30th day of observation, microcirculation recovery proceeded at the same pace in all groups of animals, with the exception of a slight lag in animals of subgroup 3 in group III, however, by the 90th day and by the end of the observation period, significant differences in capillary blood flow levels could not be found.

Conclusion. The obtained results should be taken into account in outpatient dental practice when performing manipulations related to the use of the GBR technique

About the Authors

D. Yu. Avedova
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education V.I. Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia,
Russian Federation

Avedova Diana Yurievna – postgraduate student of the department of Therapeutic Dentistry



Yu. L. Osipova
V.I. Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation

Osipova Yulia Lvovna – MD, Professor of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry



L. A. Zyulkina
Penza State University, Ministry of Education and Science
Russian Federation

Zyulkina Larisa Alekseevna – MD, Head of the Department of Dentistry



A. V. Yurkevich
Far Eastern State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Russian Federation

Yurkevich Alexander Vladimirovich – Dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Head of the Department of Orthopedic Dentistry; Doctor of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences



I. D. Ushnitsky
Medical Institute of M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation

Ushnitsky Innokenty Dmitrievich – MD, Professor, Head of the Department of Therapeutic, Surgical, Orthopedic Dentistry and Pediatric Dentistry



References

1. Drobyshev A. YU., Yanushevich O. O. Maxillofacial Surgery. Mosсow: GEOTAR-Media. 2018. 880 p.

2. Ivanov, S. Yu., Muraev A. A., Yamurkova N. F. Reconstructive surgery of the alveolar bone. Moscow: GEOTAR Media. 2016. 360 p.

3. Kulakov A.A. Dental implantation: national guidelines. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media. 2018. 400 p.

4. Bone grafting techniques and materials for implant dentistry / S. Kandhari, S. Khalid, A. James [et al.] // Br. Dent. J. 2023. 235(3). Р. 180- 189. doi: 10.1038/s41415-023-6113-1.

5. Chatelet M., Afota F., Savoldelli C. Review of bone graft and implant survival rate : A comparison between autogenous bone block versus guided bone regeneration // J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022. 123(2). Р. 222-227. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2021.04.009.

6. Efficacy of the autogenous dentin graft for implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials / B. Mahardawi, S. Jiaranuchart, K.A., Tompkins [et al.] // Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023. 52(5). Р. 604-612. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.10.014.

7. Evaluation of Block Allograft Efficacy in Lateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation / B.B. Bose, P.M. Natarajan, A.L. Kannan [et al.] // J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2022. 23(8). Р. 807-812. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3377.

8. Horizontal augmentation techniques in the mandible: a systematic review / R. Smeets, L. Matthies, P. Windisch [et al.] // Int. J. Implant Dent. 2022. 8(1). Р. 23. doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00421-7.

9. Horizontal ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration using particulate xenogenic bone substitutes with or without autogenous block grafts: A randomized controlled trial / G. Mendoza-Azpur, E. Chavez, E. Valdivia [et al.] // Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2019. 21(4). Р. 521-530. doi: 10.1111/cid.12740.

10. Intraoral onlay block bone grafts versus cortical tenting technique on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review / A. Aloy-Prósper, E. Carramolino-Cuéllar, D. Peñarrocha-Oltra [et al.] // Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2022. 27(2). Р.181-190. doi: 10.4317/medoral.25169.

11. Khoury F., Hanser T. Three-Dimensional Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in the Posterior Maxilla: A 10-year Clinical Study // Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2019. 34(2). Р. 471- 480. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6869.

12. Osseointegration of dental implants in ectopic engineered bone in three different scaffold materials / H. Naujokat, Y. Açil, S. Harder [et al.] // Int. J. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020. 49(1). Р. 135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.04.005.

13. Robert L., Aloy-Prósper A., Arias-Herrera S. Vertical augmentation of the atrofic posterior mandibular ridges with onlay grafts: Intraoral blocks vs. guided bone regeneration. Systematic review // J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2023. 15(5). Р. 357- 365. doi: 10.4317/jced.60294.

14. Tsuchida S., Nakayama T. Recent Clinical Treatment and Basic Research on the Alveolar Bone. Biomedicines. 2023.11(3). Р.843. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11030843.

15. Vertical Ridge Gain with Various Bone Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis / M.H. Hameed, M. Gul, R. Ghafoor [et al.] // J. Prosthodont. 2019.28(4). Р. 421-427. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13028.


Review

For citations:


Avedova D.Yu., Osipova Yu.L., Zyulkina L.A., Yurkevich A.V., Ushnitsky I.D. Efficiency of using autogenic bone in combination with a xenogenic bone material for guided bone tissue regeneration in an experiment. Yakut Medical Journal. 2023;(4):35-38. https://doi.org/10.25789/YMJ.2023.84.09

Views: 27


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1813-1905 (Print)
ISSN 2312-1017 (Online)