Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-03-17, 11:08:54 | version 1.38.0
B i o m a t e r i a l s f o r o n l a y b o n e g r a f t s tomography is the next wave of bone regener- ation and repair.74, 75 The idea of these scafolds for bone regeneration is based upon their ability not only to maintain space, but also to create a 3-D graft structure that mimics the body’s own extracellular matrix into which cells attach, mi- grate and proliferate.76, 77 The porosity in such a scaffold biomaterial is important because it allows the transport of nutrients and facilitates tissue ingrowth. Hollister et al. proposed that the ideal scafold should possess the following four properties: form, function, fixation and for- mation.74 Wagoner Johnson and Herschler fur- ther pointed out that scafolds should possess biocompatibility, conductivity, bioactivity, osteo inductive and interconnected porosity.78 Hence, synthetic scafolds are currently being studied in animal models and in vitro.79–84 The application of gene therapy (mesenchymal stem cells or human-derived growth factors) via pre- fabricated scafolds is the focus of much re- search at present because growth factors can be used to accelerate the wound-healing process and to promote mesenchymal stem cell migra- tion and maturation. Conclusion Allogeneic and xenogeneic bone block grafts represent promising alternatives to autogenous bone for ridge augmentation. Nonetheless, the evidence supporting the use of xenogeneic block grafts remains minimal; hence, more long-term human studies are needed to validate their efectiveness. In addition, using prefabricated scafolds impregnated with growth factors pro- vides an interesting field to be further explored. Competing interests The authors do not have any financial interests, either directly or indirectly, in the products or information listed in the paper. Acknowledgments This paper was partially supported by the University of Michigan’s Periodontal Graduate Student Research Fund. In addition, we would like to thank Mr. Hai Bo Wen (Director of Research, Zimmer Biomet Dental), Ms. Vanesa Álvaro (Scientific Marketing Manager, Inibsal Dental) and Dr. Varvara Mitropoulos (Project Manager Clinical Science, Geistlich Pharma) for providing the scanning electron microscopy im- ages. Lastly, we would like to thank Dr. Francisco O’Valle (Department of Pathology, School of Medicine and Institute of Biopatholo- gy and Regenerative Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain) for the histological analysis shown in Figure 4. References 1. Carlsson GE, Bergman B, Hedegard B. Changes in contour of the maxillary alveolar process under immediate dentures. A longitudinal clinical and X-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. → Acta Odontol Scand. 1967 Jun;25(1):45–75. 4. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. → Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313–23. 2. Atwood DA, Coy WA. Clinical, cephalomet- ric, and densitometric study of reduction of residual ridges. → J Prosthet Dent. 1971 Sep;26(3):280–95. 3. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. → J Prosthet Dent. 1967 Jan;17(1):21–7. 5. Hammerle CH, Jung RE, Feloutzis A. A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. → J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:226–31; discussion 232–3. 6. Tessier P, Kawamoto H, Matthews D, Posnick J, Raulo Y, Tulasne JF, Wolfe SA. Autogenous bone grafts and bone substitutes—tools and techniques: I. A 20,000-case experience in maxillofacial and craniofacial surgery. → Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Oct;116(5 Suppl):6S–24S; discussion 92S–94S. 7. Monje A, Monje F, Galindo-Moreno P, Montanero-Fernandez J, Suarez F, Wang HL. Microstructural and densiometric analysis of extra oral bone block grafts for maxillary horizontal bone augmentation: a comparison between calvarial bone and iliac crest. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jun;25(6):659–64. Epub 2013 Apr 28. 8. Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduc- tion, osteoconduction and osseointegration. → Eur Spine J. 2001 Oct;10 Suppl 2:S96–101. 9. Burchardt H. The biology of bone graft repair. → Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Apr;(174):28–42. 10. Zins JE, Whitaker LA. Membranous versus endochondral bone: implications for craniofacial reconstruction. → Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983 Dec;72(6):778–85. 11. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):63–74. 28 Volume 3 | Issue 1/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation