4.4 Article

Improving Bone Formation by Guided Bone Regeneration Using a Collagen Membrane with rhBMP-2: A Novel Concept

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL BIOMATERIALS
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jfb14030170

关键词

guided bone regeneration; rhBMP-2; collagen membrane; biphasic calcium phosphate; bone formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the reinforcement effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) applied to collagen membranes in guided bone regeneration. Results show that the combination of collagen membranes with rhBMP-2 and biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) significantly enhances bone formation rates. The 2-week healing period yields lower bone formation compared to 4 and 8 weeks.
We examined whether recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) when applied to collagen membranes, would reinforce them during guided bone regeneration. Four critical cranial bone defects were created and treated in 30 New Zealand white rabbits, including a control group, critical defect only; group 1, collagen membrane only; group 2, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) only; group 3, collagen membrane + BCP; group 4, collagen membrane with rhBMP-2 (1.0 mg/mL); group 5, collagen membrane with rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL); group 6, collagen membrane with rhBMP-2 (1.0 mg/mL) + BCP; and group 7, collagen membrane with rhBMP-2 (0.5 mg/mL) + BCP. After a 2-, 4-, or 8-week healing period, the animals were sacrificed. The combination of collagen membranes with rhBMP-2 and BCP yielded significantly higher bone formation rates compared to the other groups (control group and groups 1-5 < groups 6 and 7; p < 0.05). A 2-week healing period yielded significantly lower bone formation than that at 4 and 8 weeks (2 < 4 = 8 weeks; p < 0.05). This study proposes a novel GBR concept in which rhBMP-2 is applied to collagen membranes outside instead of inside the grafted area, thereby inducing quantitatively and qualitatively enhanced bone regeneration in critical bone defects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据