TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration
T2 - An In Vivo Study
AU - Slavin, Blaire V.
AU - Nayak, Vasudev Vivekanand
AU - Parra, Marcelo
AU - Spielman, Robert D.
AU - Torquati, Matteo S.
AU - Iglesias, Nicholas J.
AU - Coelho, Paulo
AU - Witek, Lukasz
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 by the authors.
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (p > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.
AB - Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (p > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.
KW - alveolar ridge preservation
KW - anorganic bone
KW - guided bone regeneration
KW - xenografts
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105007073726&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=105007073726&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/bioengineering12050459
DO - 10.3390/bioengineering12050459
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105007073726
SN - 2306-5354
VL - 12
JO - Bioengineering
JF - Bioengineering
IS - 5
M1 - 459
ER -