Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (<i>p</i> > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioengineering
Published
2025-04-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12050459
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.79
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study

Nicholas J. Iglesias, Blaire V. Slavin, Robert Spielman, Marcelo Parra et al.
1 citations
Bioengineering
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
1.79
article

Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study

Nicholas J. Iglesias, Blaire V. Slavin, Robert Spielman, Marcelo Parra, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Lukasz Witek, Paulo G. Coelho, Matteo Simone Torquati
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (<i>p</i> > 0.05). GBR with DBB and DPB showed no signs of adverse immune response and led to similar trends in bone regeneration over 48 weeks of permitted healing.

BioengineeringVol. 12(5)
Universidad de La Frontera (CL), University of Miami (US), Dr. John T. Macdonald Foundation (US), New York University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
1.79
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.