Comparison of canine mandibular bone regeneration by distraction osteogenesis versus acute resection and rigid external fixation

被引:8
|
作者
Gosain, AK
Kalantarian, B
Song, LS
Larson, JD
Jenkins, CA
Wilson, CR
机构
[1] Med Coll Wisconsin, Dept Plast Surg, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
[2] Med Coll Wisconsin, Dept Biophys, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.PRS.0000135515.71191.1A
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The present study was performed (1) to explore the mechanism of skeletal healing following distraction osteogenesis of the mandible and to evaluate whether the same process is involved following acute mandibular resection and rigid external fixation, and (2) to examine the role of the periosteum in skeletal healing in both models. The study was performed using 16 mongrel dogs divided into two equal groups. In the first group, distraction of 20 mm was performed at a rate of 1 mm/day. In the second group, bone resection of 20 mm was performed, followed by rigid external fixation. The buccal periosteum was stripped in four dogs from each group, and the periosteum was left intact in the remaining four dogs. Dogs were euthanized after a survival period of either 2 or 3 months, and the new bone regenerate was evaluated. Analysis consisted of three-dimensional computed tomography scanning, histometric analysis, and immunostaining. Analysis of bone mineral content in the residual gap was conducted. Bone mineral content was increased in 3- versus 2-month survival for all groups (p < 0.05). The distracted groups had greater bone mineral content than their acutely resected counterparts, with the difference achieving statistical significance by 3-month survival (p < 0.05). Although periosteal preservation resulted in increased bone mineral content over time for all groups (p = 0.044), periosteal preservation had no significant effect on bone mineral content in the distracted groups. After periosteal stripping, however, bone mineral content was significantly increased in dogs that underwent distraction rather than acute resection and rigid external fixation (p = 0.022). Regarding histometric analysis, analysis of fibrous tissue content in the bone regenerate demonstrated that by 3 months the distracted groups had significantly less fibrous tissue in the new bone regenerate than did the acutely resected groups (p < 0.001). Regarding immunostaining, diffuse localization of transforming growth factor-beta1 was observed in all groups at 2 months, returning to nearly baseline levels by 3 months. These data demonstrate that significant bone formation in a segmental gap can be achieved after acute mandibular resection and rigid external fixation if the periosteum is preserved. However, after periosteal injury or stripping, significant bone formation can only be achieved by distraction osteogenesis. In both processes, bone formation is preceded by upregulation of transforming growth factor-beta1.
引用
收藏
页码:1490 / 1499
页数:10
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] Comparison of canine mandibular bone regeneration by distraction oste genesis versus acute resection and rigid external fixation - Discussion
    Hollier, L
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2004, 114 (06) : 1500 - 1501
  • [2] Deferoxamine Enhances Bone Regeneration in Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
    Farberg, Aaron S.
    Sarhaddi, Deniz
    Donneys, Alexis
    Deshpande, Sagar S.
    Buchman, Steven R.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2014, 133 (03) : 666 - 671
  • [3] Bone regeneration in mandibular distraction osteogenesis combined with compression stimulation
    Kim, Uk-Kyu
    Cbung, In-Kyo
    Lee, Kwang-Ho
    Swift, James Q.
    Seong, Wookjin
    Ko, Cbing-Chang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2006, 64 (10) : 1498 - 1505
  • [4] Comparison of the Effects of Two Different Analgesics on Bone Regeneration During Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
    Sabuncuoglu, Fidan Alakus
    Ersahan, Seyda
    Amasyali, Mihri
    Avunduk, Mustafa Cihat
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2019, 30 (01) : E80 - E85
  • [5] Inhibitory effect of nicotine on bone regeneration in mandibular distraction osteogenesis
    Ma, Li
    Zheng, Li Wu
    Cheung, Lim Kwong
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE-LANDMARK, 2007, 12 : 3256 - 3262
  • [6] Outcome of Early Rigid Fixation and Removal of Rigid External Distraction System After Distraction Osteogenesis of the Midface
    Yun, In Sik
    Park, Be-Young Yun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2011, 22 (02) : 576 - 580
  • [7] Deferoxamine Enhances the Vascular Response of Bone Regeneration in Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
    Donneys, Alexis
    Farberg, Aaron S.
    Tchanque-Fossuo, Catherine N.
    Deshpande, Sagar S.
    Buchman, Steven R.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 129 (04) : 850 - 856
  • [8] Sensory Nerves Affect Bone Regeneration in Rabbit Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis
    Cao, Jian
    Zhang, Shijian
    Gupta, Anand
    Du, Zhaojie
    Lei, Delin
    Wang, Lei
    Wang, Xudong
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2019, 16 (06): : 831 - 837
  • [9] Distraction osteogenesis to achieve mandibular vertical bone regeneration: A case report
    Urbani, G
    Lombardo, G
    Santi, E
    Consolo, U
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 1999, 19 (04) : 321 - 331
  • [10] Durations of Bone Consolidation and External Fixation After Distraction Osteogenesis in Dogs
    Tuohy, Joanne L.
    Marcellin-Little, Denis J.
    Griffith, Emily H.
    [J]. VETERINARY SURGERY, 2014, 43 (08) : 903 - 911