Publications

Objectives This study aimed to compare the performance of a xenograft (XG) and a biomimetic synthetic graft (SG) in three-wall alveolar defects in minipigs by means of 3D computerised tomography and histology. Materials and methods Eight minipigs were used. A total of eight defects were created in the jaw of each animal, three of which were grafted with XGs, three with SGs, and two were left empty as a negative control. The allocation of the different grafts was randomised. Four animals were euthanised at 6 weeks and four at 12 weeks. The grafted volume was then measured by spiral computed tomography to assess volume preservation. Additionally, a histological analysis was performed in undecalcified samples by backscattered scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy after Masson's trichrome staining. Results A linear mixed-effects model was applied considering four fixed factors (bone graft type, regeneration time, anatomic position, and maxilla/mandible) and one random factor (animal). The SG exhibited significantly larger grafted volume (19%) than the XG. The anterior sites preserved better the grafted volume than the posterior ones. Finally, regeneration time had a positive effect on the grafted volume. Histological observations revealed excellent osseointegration and osteoconductive properties for both biomaterials. Some concavities found in the spheroidal morphologies of SGs were associated with osteoclastic resorption. Conclusions Both biomaterials met the requirements for bone grafting, i.e. biocompatibility, osseointegration, and osteoconduction. Granule morphology was identified as an important factor to ensure a good volume preservation.

JTD Keywords: bone graft, bone regeneration, in vivo, miniature swine, synthetic graft, 3-dimensional changes, Anorganic bovine bone, Autogenous bone, Bio-oss, Biomaterials, Bone graft, Bone regeneration, Calcium-phosphate, Hydroxyapatite, In vivo, Miniature swine, Sinus floor augmentation, Substitute, Synthetic graft, Volume, Xenograft