A Radiological Approach to Evaluate Bone Graft Integration in Reconstructive Surgeries

(1) Background: Bone tissue engineering is a promising tool to develop new smart solutions for regeneration of complex bone districts, from orthopedic to oral and maxillo-facial fields. In this respect, a crucial characteristic for biomaterials is the ability to fully integrate within the patient body. In this work, we developed a novel radiological approach, in substitution to invasive histology, for evaluating the level of osteointegration and osteogenesis, in both qualitative and quantitative manners. (2) SmartBone®, a composite xeno-hybrid bone graft, was selected as the base material because of its remarkable effectiveness in clinical practice. Using preand post-surgery computed tomography (CT), we built 3D models that faithfully represented the patient’s anatomy, with special attention to the bone defects. (3) Results: This way, it was possible to assess whether the new bone formation respected the natural geometry of the healthy bone. In all cases of the study (four dental, one maxillo-facial, and one orthopedic) we evaluated the presence of new bone formation and volumetric increase. (4) Conclusion: The newly established radiological protocol allowed the tracking of SmartBone®effective integration and bone regeneration. Moreover, the patient’s anatomy was completely restored in the defect area and functionality completely rehabilitated without foreign body reaction or inflammation.

[1]  D. Belisario,et al.  Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction/Xenohybrid Bone Scaffold: An Alternative Source for Bone Regeneration , 2018, Stem cells international.

[2]  S. Jo,et al.  Histological Evaluation of the Healing Process of Various Bone Graft Materials after Engraftment into the Human Body , 2018, Materials.

[3]  F. Carinci,et al.  COMPOSITE POLYMER-COATED MINERAL SCAFFOLDS FOR BONE REGENERATION: FROM MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION TO HUMAN STUDIES. , 2015, Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents.

[4]  C. Castagnoli,et al.  Concentrated adipose tissue infusion for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: clinical and histological observations , 2018, International Orthopaedics.

[5]  M. Bohner,et al.  Resorbable biomaterials as bone graft substitutes , 2010 .

[6]  C. Stefanini,et al.  Bovine bone matrix/poly(l-lactic-co-ε-caprolactone)/gelatin hybrid scaffold (SmartBone®) for maxillary sinus augmentation: A histologic study on bone regeneration. , 2017, International journal of pharmaceutics.

[7]  Theo H. Smit,et al.  Biodegradable Polymers in Bone Tissue Engineering , 2009, Materials.

[8]  Haw-Ming Huang,et al.  Bone regeneration using a porcine bone substitute collagen composite in vitro and in vivo , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[9]  R. Gordon.  Dose Reduction in Computed Tomography , 1977 .

[10]  J. Hirsch,et al.  Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. , 1998, European journal of oral sciences.

[11]  F. Carinci,et al.  RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ZYGOMATIC BONE WITH SMARTBONE®: CASE REPORT. , 2015, Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents.

[12]  G. Duda,et al.  A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering , 2018, Bone & joint research.

[13]  Jim Kennedy,et al.  The Hounsfield value for cortical bone geometry in the proximal humerus—an in vitro study , 2012, Skeletal Radiology.

[14]  G. Perale,et al.  A Methodologic Approach for the Selection of Bio-Resorbable Polymers in the Development of Medical Devices: The Case of Poly(l-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) , 2018, Polymers.

[15]  Thomas L. Smith,et al.  A Decellularized Porcine Xenograft-Derived Bone Scaffold for Clinical Use as a Bone Graft Substitute: A Critical Evaluation of Processing and Structure , 2018, Journal of functional biomaterials.

[16]  Rik Huiskes,et al.  Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone , 2000, Nature.

[17]  大槻 文悟,et al.  Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants : three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants , 2007 .

[18]  Justine C. Lee,et al.  Biomimetic Scaffolds for Osteogenesis. , 2015, Receptors & clinical investigation.

[19]  Robert Langer,et al.  Biodegradable Polymer Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering , 1994, Bio/Technology.

[21]  J. Hirsch,et al.  Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. , 1998, European journal of oral sciences.

[22]  E. Machtei,et al.  Biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of PLCL coated and noncoated xenografts: An in vitro and preclinical trial , 2018, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[23]  G. Perinetti,et al.  New bone formation after transcrestal sinus floor elevation was influenced by sinus cavity dimensions: A prospective histologic and histomorphometric study , 2018, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  C. Langton,et al.  The Physical Measurement of Bone , 2003 .

[25]  M. Collins,et al.  Hyaluronic acid based scaffolds for tissue engineering--a review. , 2013, Carbohydrate polymers.

[26]  Yuehuei H. An,et al.  Handbook of Histology Methods for Bone and Cartilage , 2003, Humana Press.

[27]  Giuseppe Perale,et al.  Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial? , 2019, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[28]  L. Bancroft,et al.  Imaging characteristics of bone graft materials. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[29]  G. Perale,et al.  Positioning of a contextual implant along with a sinus lift anchored with a block of heterologous bone. , 2017, ORAL & implantology.

[30]  Byong-Taek Lee,et al.  Hard tissue regeneration using bone substitutes: an update on innovations in materials , 2015, The Korean journal of internal medicine.

[31]  Mauro Petretta,et al.  Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: State of the art and new perspectives. , 2017, Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications.

[32]  A. Musset,et al.  Bone substitutes: a review of their characteristics, clinical use, and perspectives for large bone defects management , 2018, Journal of tissue engineering.

[33]  K. Schenke-Layland,et al.  The Future of Tissue Engineering , 2018, Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering.

[34]  Michael T. Wilson,et al.  Antibacterial activity of particulate bioglass against supra- and subgingival bacteria. , 2001, Biomaterials.

[35]  D. Zaffe,et al.  Minimum Abutment Height to Eliminate Bone Loss: Influence of Implant Neck Design and Platform Switching. , 2018, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[36]  A. Grumezescu,et al.  Hyaluronic acid-based scaffolds for tissue engineering. , 2018, Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie.

[37]  G. Perale,et al.  Scaffolds as Structural Tools for Bone-Targeted Drug Delivery , 2018, Pharmaceutics.

[38]  L. Testarelli,et al.  Histologic and Histomorphometric Analysis of Bone Regeneration with Bovine Grafting Material after 24 Months of Healing. A Case Report , 2018, Journal of functional biomaterials.

[39]  M. Glogauer,et al.  Bone Replacement Materials and Techniques Used for Achieving Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation , 2015, Materials.

[40]  David Taylor,et al.  Living with cracks: damage and repair in human bone. , 2007, Nature materials.

[41]  G. Perale,et al.  Improving Bovine Bone Mechanical Characteristics for the Development of Xenohybrid Bone Grafts. , 2019, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[42]  J. Chevalier,et al.  Effect of micro- and macroporosity of bone substitutes on their mechanical properties and cellular response , 2003, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[43]  Karen L Troy,et al.  Practical considerations for obtaining high quality quantitative computed tomography data of the skeletal system. , 2018, Bone.

[44]  Y. Mishina,et al.  Pore size directs bone marrow stromal cell fate and tissue regeneration in nanofibrous macroporous scaffolds by mediating vascularization. , 2018, Acta biomaterialia.

[45]  K. Nguyen,et al.  A review of materials, fabrication methods, and strategies used to enhance bone regeneration in engineered bone tissues. , 2008, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[46]  Zohaib Khurshid,et al.  Biodegradable Materials for Bone Repair and Tissue Engineering Applications , 2015, Materials.

[47]  R. Molteni.  Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. , 2013, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[48]  G. Hannink,et al.  Bioresorbability, porosity and mechanical strength of bone substitutes: what is optimal for bone regeneration? , 2011, Injury.

[49]  G. Perale,et al.  Composite polymer-coated mineral grafts for bone regeneration: material characterisation and model study , 2014 .

[50]  Cijun Shuai,et al.  A Multimaterial Scaffold With Tunable Properties: Toward Bone Tissue Repair , 2018, Advanced science.

[51]  J. Kanczler,et al.  Development of in vivo muCT evaluation of neovascularisation in tissue engineered bone constructs. , 2008, Bone.

[52]  P. Anderson,et al.  Use of computed tomography for assessing bone mineral density. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.