Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: First and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results

Background: The present study was first to evaluate the material-specific cellular tissue response of patients with head and neck cancer to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute NanoBone (NB) in comparison with a deproteinized bovine bone matrix Bio-Oss (BO) after implantation into the sinus cavity. Materials and Methods: Eight patients with tumor resection for oral cancer and severely resorbed maxillary bone received materials according to a split mouth design for 6 months. Bone cores were harvested prior to implantation and analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. Implant survival was followed-up to 2 years after placement. Results: Histologically, NB underwent a higher vascularization and induced significantly more tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive (TRAP-positive) multinucleated giant cells when compared with BO, which induced mainly mononuclear cells. No significant difference was observed in the extent of new bone formation between both groups. The clinical follow-up showed undisturbed healing of all implants in the BO-group, whereas the loss of one implant was observed in the NB-group. Conclusions: Within its limits, the present study showed for the first time that both material classes evaluated, despite their induction of different cellular tissue reactions, may be useful as augmentation materials for dental and maxillofacial surgical applications, particularly in patients who previously had oral cancer.

[1]  M. Barbeck,et al.  Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute leads to sufficient bone tissue formation already after 3 months: histological and histomorphometrical analysis 3 and 6 months following human sinus cavity augmentation. , 2013, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[2]  M. Barbeck,et al.  Implantation of silicon dioxide-based nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite and pure phase beta-tricalciumphosphate bone substitute granules in caprine muscle tissue does not induce new bone formation , 2013, Head & Face Medicine.

[3]  Jiake Xu,et al.  An overview of the regulation of bone remodelling at the cellular level. , 2012, Clinical biochemistry.

[4]  N. Sims,et al.  Intercellular Cross-Talk Among Bone Cells: New Factors and Pathways , 2012, Current Osteoporosis Reports.

[5]  M. Barbeck,et al.  The chemical composition of synthetic bone substitutes influences tissue reactions in vivo: histological and histomorphometrical analysis of the cellular inflammatory response to hydroxyapatite, beta-tricalcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics , 2012, Biomedical materials.

[6]  Xu Cao.  Targeting osteoclast-osteoblast communication , 2011, Nature Medicine.

[7]  Ronald E. Unger,et al.  Scaffold vascularization in vivo driven by primary human osteoblasts in concert with host inflammatory cells. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[8]  M. Barbeck,et al.  Evaluation of the tissue reaction to a new bilayered collagen matrix in vivo and its translation to the clinic , 2011, Biomedical materials.

[9]  Ronald E. Unger,et al.  Influence of β-tricalcium phosphate granule size and morphology on tissue reaction in vivo. , 2010, Acta biomaterialia.

[10]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2010 , 2010, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[11]  M. Barbeck,et al.  Fine‐tuning scaffolds for tissue regeneration: effects of formic acid processing on tissue reaction to silk fibroin , 2010, Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

[12]  M. Barbeck,et al.  Histological and histomorphometrical analysis of a silica matrix embedded nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute using the subcutaneous implantation model in Wistar rats , 2010, Biomedical materials.

[13]  R. Müller,et al.  Collagen-embedded hydroxylapatite–beta-tricalcium phosphate–silicon dioxide bone substitute granules assist rapid vascularization and promote cell growth , 2010, Biomedical materials.

[14]  R. Sader,et al.  Maxillary Sinus Grafting with a Nano-Structured Biomaterial: Preliminary Clinical and Histological Results , 2009, European Surgical Research.

[15]  B. Hoflack,et al.  Osteoclasts Control Osteoblast Chemotaxis via PDGF-BB/PDGF Receptor Beta Signaling , 2008, PloS one.

[16]  B. von Rechenberg,et al.  Biocompatibility Issues with Modern Implants in Bone - A Review for Clinical Orthopedics , 2008, The open orthopaedics journal.

[17]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. , 2008, Seminars in immunology.

[18]  H. Anderson,et al.  Expression and Synthesis of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins by Osteoclasts: A Possible Path to Anabolic Bone Remodeling , 2008, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[19]  A. Hayman.  Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) and the osteoclast/immune cell dichotomy , 2008, Autoimmunity.

[20]  A. Piattelli,et al.  A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of anorganic bovine bone retrieved 9 years after a sinus augmentation procedure. , 2007, Journal of periodontology.

[21]  Clemens A van Blitterswijk,et al.  Bone regeneration: molecular and cellular interactions with calcium phosphate ceramics , 2006, International journal of nanomedicine.

[22]  E. Odell,et al.  Efficacy of bovine bone mineral for alveolar augmentation: a human histologic study. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  P. Valentini,et al.  Maxillary sinus grafting with anorganic bovine bone: a clinical report of long-term results. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[24]  A. Icaro Cornaglia,et al.  Ten-year follow-up in a maxillary sinus augmentation using anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss). A case report with histomorphometric evaluation. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  Cato T. Laurencin,et al.  Bone-Graft Substitutes: Facts, Fictions, and Applications , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  L. Sennerby,et al.  Histologic analysis of clinical biopsies taken 6 months and 3 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with 80% bovine hydroxyapatite and 20% autogenous bone mixed with fibrin glue. , 2001, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[27]  M. Sayer,et al.  Resorbable bioceramics based on stabilized calcium phosphates. Part II: evaluation of biological response. , 2001, Biomaterials.

[28]  D. Edelhoff,et al.  Maxillary sinus augmentation using xenogenic bone substitute material Bio-Oss in combination with venous blood. A histologic and histomorphometric study in humans. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[29]  J. Mellonig.  Human histologic evaluation of a bovine-derived bone xenograft in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. , 2000, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[30]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Multinucleated giant cells , 2000, Current opinion in hematology.

[31]  C J Damien,et al.  Bone graft and bone graft substitutes: a review of current technology and applications. , 1991, Journal of applied biomaterials : an official journal of the Society for Biomaterials.

[32]  N. Ferrara.  The role of VEGF in the regulation of physiological and pathological angiogenesis. , 2005, EXS.

[33]  K. Henkel,et al.  Development and In Vivo Test of Sol-Gel Derived Bone Grafting Materials , 2003 .

[34]  J. Déjou,et al.  The biodegradation mechanism of calcium phosphate biomaterials in bone. , 2002, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[35]  F. Melsen,et al.  Tissue reaction and material characteristics of four bone substitutes. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[36]  M. Chapman,et al.  Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. , 1989, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.