• Submission Form (PDF)
• Author Guidelines (PDF)
• Submit

• Accepted Manuscripts

Back

Volume 21 , Issue 2
March/April 2006
Pages 237–244

Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Autogenous Onlay Grafting. Part II: Biology of Regenerate and Onlay Bone

Nathan E. Hodges, DMD, MS / Michael Perry, DMD, MS / Waheed Mohamed, BS / W. William Hallmon, DMD, MS / Terry Rees, DDS, MSD / Lynne A. Opperman, PhD

PMID: 16634494

Purpose: Few studies have directly compared the quality of bone generated by distraction osteogenesis with that generated by autogenous onlay grafting. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of bone turnover at 5 months in bone produced by distraction osteogenesis and onlay grafting. materials and methods: Alveolar defects created in jaws of American foxhounds were augmented with distraction osteogenesis or onlay grafting and allowed to heal for 5 months. The animals were then sacrificed and the jaws were resected and prepared for decalcified and undecalcified histologic examination. Results: Both procedures produced bone containing a mixture of haversian systems and trabecular bone. A significantly greater ratio of osteoblast-covered bone surface to total trabecular bone surface (mean ± SEM) was noted in distraction bone (0.124 ± 0.049) compared to onlay bone (0.081 ± 0.048) or control host bone (0.085 ± 0.042 mm) (P < .05). In addition, significantly (P < .05) greater numbers of osteoclasts per mm of bone surface were noted in distraction bone (0.939 ± 0.07) compared to onlay bone (0.605 ± 0.06) or control host bone (0.725 ± 0.08). No differences in rates of mineralization were noted between the groups. Discussion: While bone from both experimental groups appeared adequate for implant placement, distraction bone appeared to be remodeling at a higher rate than either onlay or control bone. Conclusion: Given that the state of healing of the bone in each of these comparative groups was examined at a static point in time, it is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy of one procedure over the other. (Basic Science)

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:237–244

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.