Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery

ORIGINAL RESEARCH - MATERIAL SCIENCE
Year
: 2013  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 126--138

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


Shahram Ghanaati1, Mike Barbeck1, Jonas Lorenz1, Stefan Stuebinger2, Oliver Seitz3, Constantin Landes3, Adorján F Kovács4, Charles J Kirkpatrick6, Robert A Sader3 
1 Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main; REPAIR-Lab, Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
2 Center for Applied Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland
3 Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
4 Private Practice, Nauheim, Germany

Correspondence Address:
Shahram Ghanaati
Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main
Germany

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.


How to cite this article:
Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Stuebinger S, Seitz O, Landes C, Kovács AF, Kirkpatrick CJ, Sader RA. Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: First and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results.Ann Maxillofac Surg 2013;3:126-138


How to cite this URL:
Ghanaati S, Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Stuebinger S, Seitz O, Landes C, Kovács AF, Kirkpatrick CJ, Sader RA. Synthetic bone substitute material comparable with xenogeneic material for bone tissue regeneration in oral cancer patients: First and preliminary histological, histomorphometrical and clinical results. Ann Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2013 [cited 2021 Jun 22 ];3:126-138
Available from: https://www.amsjournal.com/article.asp?issn=2231-0746;year=2013;volume=3;issue=2;spage=126;epage=138;aulast=Ghanaati;type=0