Evaluation of Goose-beak Bone Particles for Dentoalveolar Reconstruction in Dogs

Oral hard tissue defect models for evaluating the regenerative efficacy of implant materials

Oral hard tissue defects are common concomitant symptoms of oral diseases, which have poor prognosis and often exert detrimental effects on the physical and mental health of patients. Implant materials can accelerate the regeneration of oral hard tissue defects (such as periodontal defects, alveolar bone defects, maxilla bone defects, mandible bone defects, alveolar ridge expansion, and site preservation), but their regenerative efficacy and biocompatibility need to be preclinically validated in vivo with animal‐based oral hard tissue defect models. The choice of oral hard tissue defect model depends on the regenerative effect and intended application of the tested implant material. At the same time, factors that need to be considered include techniques for constructing the particular defect model, the scaffold/graft material used, the availability of animal model evaluation techniques and instrumentation, as well as costs and time constraints. In this article, we summarize the common oral hard tissue defect models in various animal species (such as periodontal model, jaw defect model, and implantation defect model) that can be used to evaluate the regenerative efficacy and biocompatibility of implant materials.

Osteogenic Evaluation of Hydroxyapatite Scaffold Loaded With Dexamethasone in Femoral Drill Holes

BACKGROUND/AIM

Many cases of bone damage are due to trauma and metabolic diseases. This study aimed to evaluate bone regeneration into a porous hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffold using dexamethasone (DM)-loaded polymeric microspheres.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four adult dogs were used to evaluate the in vivo performance of DM-loaded microspheres immobilized on the surfaces of porous HA scaffolds. Two 5-mm drill holes were created in both the left and right femurs of each dog. The experimental groups included a control group (drill holes filled with HA scaffold alone), a DM 20 group (holes filled with DM-loaded HA scaffold with 20 mg DM per scaffold), and a DM 100 group (hole filled with DM-loaded HA scaffold with 100 mg DM per scaffold). Resulting bone volume percentages and bone mineral densities were calculated by examing micro-computed tomographic (CT) images.

RESULTS

The DM-loaded HA scaffold groups showed a gradual periosteal reaction two weeks after insertion of the HA scaffold into the femoral drill holes. Four weeks after HA scaffold insertion, the periosteal reaction in the femoral drill holes became denser. Eight weeks after insertion of DM-loaded HA scaffolds, clear images of the scaffold were observed in micro-CT images of the femoral drill hole. The DM 100 group had better bone healing tendencies (bone mineral density, bone mass, trabecular volume, bone surface, and trabecular thickness) than the DM 20 group.

CONCLUSION

DM-loaded HA scaffolds are suitable platforms for distributing bioactive molecules during osteogenesis in femoral drill holes.