Display options
Cite
Barbeck M, Udeabor SE, Lorenz J, et al. Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss™) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014;4(2):150-7doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.147106.
Barbeck, M., Udeabor, S. E., Lorenz, J., Kubesch, A., Choukroun, J., Sader, R. A., Kirkpatrick, C. J., & Ghanaati, S. (2014). Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss™) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization. Annals of maxillofacial surgery, 4(2), 150-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.147106
Barbeck, M, et al. "Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss™) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization." Annals of maxillofacial surgery vol. 4,2 (2014): 150-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.147106
Barbeck M, Udeabor SE, Lorenz J, Kubesch A, Choukroun J, Sader RA, Kirkpatrick CJ, Ghanaati S. Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss™) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec;4(2):150-7. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.147106. PMID: 25593863; PMCID: PMC4293834.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec;4(2):150-7. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.147106.

Induction of multinucleated giant cells in response to small sized bovine bone substitute (Bio-Oss™) results in an enhanced early implantation bed vascularization.

Annals of maxillofacial surgery

M Barbeck, S E Udeabor, J Lorenz, A Kubesch, J Choukroun, R A Sader, C J Kirkpatrick, S Ghanaati

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral, Cranio Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany ; REPAIR Laboratory, Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131 Mainz, Germany.
  2. REPAIR Laboratory, Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131 Mainz, Germany.
  3. Pain Clinic, 49 rue Gioffredo, 06000 Nice, France.
  4. Department of Oral, Cranio Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.

PMID: 25593863 PMCID: PMC4293834 DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.147106

Abstract

PURPOSE: The host tissue reaction to the xenogeneic bone substitute Bio-Oss™ (Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhousen, Switzerland) was investigated focusing on the participating inflammatory cells and implantation bed vascularization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bio-Oss™ was implanted subcutaneously into CD1 mice for up to 60 days and analyzed by means of specialized histological and histomorphometrical techniques after explantation.

RESULTS: Bio-Oss™ induced within the first 15 days an early high vascularization combined with a marked presence of multinucleated giant cells. The latter cells were associated mainly with the smaller sized granules within the implantation bed. Toward the end of the study the number of multinucleated giant cells decreased while the tissue reaction to the larger granules was mainly mononuclear.

CONCLUSION: The results of the present study showed that smaller xenogeneic bone substitute granules induce multinucleated giant cells, whereas the larger-sized ones became integrated within the implantation bed by means of a mononuclear cell-triggered granulation tissue. Obviously, the presence of multinucleated giant cells within biomaterial implantation beds is not only related to the type of synthetic bone substitute material, but also to the granule size of the natural-based xenogeneic bone substitute material.

Keywords: Bio-Oss; multinucleated giant cells; vascularization; xenogeneic bone substitute

References

  1. Biomaterials. 2001 May;22(9):1005-12 - PubMed
  2. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Feb;92(2):409-19 - PubMed
  3. Exp Mol Pathol. 2011 Dec;91(3):673-81 - PubMed
  4. Acta Biomater. 2011 Nov;7(11):4018-28 - PubMed
  5. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Nov-Dec;14(6):835-40 - PubMed
  6. Acta Biomater. 2010 Dec;6(12):4476-87 - PubMed
  7. Implant Dent. 2012 Oct;21(5):422-6 - PubMed
  8. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Jan-Feb;18(1):53-8 - PubMed
  9. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002 Aug;22(4):389-97 - PubMed
  10. Biomed Mater. 2012 Feb;7(1):015005 - PubMed
  11. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2001 Apr;21(2):161-9 - PubMed
  12. Bone Miner. 1994 Nov;27(2):85-96 - PubMed
  13. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Jan-Feb;13(1):69-76 - PubMed
  14. Braz Oral Res. 2008 Jan-Mar;22(1):5-10 - PubMed
  15. ANZ J Surg. 2001 Jun;71(6):354-61 - PubMed
  16. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Jun;15(3):315-24 - PubMed
  17. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Dec;14(12):1324-31 - PubMed
  18. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998 Feb;9(1):59-64 - PubMed
  19. Biomaterials. 2000 Dec;21(23):2347-59 - PubMed
  20. J Cell Biol. 1984 Aug;99(2):471-80 - PubMed
  21. Acta Biomater. 2008 Jan;4(1):139-48 - PubMed
  22. Biomaterials. 2011 Nov;32(32):8150-60 - PubMed
  23. Head Face Med. 2013 Jan 04;9:1 - PubMed
  24. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 Oct;18(10):1013-8, 1020-2, 1024, passim; quiz - PubMed
  25. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997 Dec;8(6):476-86 - PubMed
  26. Biomed Mater. 2010 Jun;5(3):35005 - PubMed
  27. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Mar;50(3):241-9 - PubMed
  28. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995 Sep;6(3):155-63 - PubMed

Publication Types