Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jun;37(6):582-90.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01557.x. Epub 2010 Mar 23.

Evaluation of implants coated with rhBMP-2 using two different coating strategies: a critical-size supraalveolar peri-implant defect study in dogs

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of implants coated with rhBMP-2 using two different coating strategies: a critical-size supraalveolar peri-implant defect study in dogs

Jaebum Lee et al. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Implants coated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) induce relevant bone formation but also resident bone remodelling.

Objectives: To compare the effect of implants fully or partially coated with rhBMP-2 on new bone formation and resident bone remodelling.

Materials and methods: Twelve, male, adult, Hound Labrador mongrel dogs were used. Critical-size, supraalveolar, peri-implant defects received titanium porous oxide surface implants coated in their most coronal aspect with rhBMP-2 (coronal-load/six animals) or by immersion of the entire implant in an rhBMP-2 solution (soak-load/six animals) for a total of 30 mug rhBMP-2/implant. All implants were air-dried. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks for histometric evaluation.

Results: Clinical healing was uneventful. Supraalveolar bone formation was not significantly affected by the rhBMP-2 application protocol. New bone height and area averaged (+/- SE) 3.4 +/- 0.2 versus 3.5 +/- 0.4 mm and 2.6 +/- 0.4 versus 2.5 +/- 0.7 mm(2) for coronal-load and soak-load implants, respectively (p>0.05). The corresponding bone density and bone-implant contact (BIC) recordings averaged 38.0 +/- 3.8%versus 34.4 +/- 5.6% and 25.0 +/- 3.8%versus 31.2 +/- 3.3% (p>0.05). In contrast, resident bone remodelling was significantly influenced by the rhBMP-2 application protocol. Bone density outside the implants threads averaged 74.7 +/- 3.8% and 50.8 +/- 4.1% for coronal-load and soak-load implants, respectively (p<0.05); bone density within the thread area averaged 51.8 +/- 1.2% and 37.8 +/- 2.9%, and BIC 70.1 +/- 6.7% and 43.3 +/- 3.9% (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Local application of rhBMP-2 appears to be a viable technology to support local bone formation and osseointegration. Coronal-load implants obviate resident bone remodelling without compromising new bone formation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources