1.Are critical size bone notch defects possible in the rabbit mandible?
Patricia L CARLISLE ; Teja GUDA ; David T SILLIMAN ; Robert G HALE ; Pamela R BROWN BAER
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2019;45(2):97-107
OBJECTIVES:
Small animal maxillofacial models, such as non-segmental critical size defects (CSDs) in the rabbit mandible, need to be standardized for use as preclinical models of bone regeneration to mimic clinical conditions such as maxillofacial trauma. The objective of this study is the establishment of a mechanically competent CSD model in the rabbit mandible to allow standardized evaluation of bone regeneration therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Three sizes of bony defect were generated in the mandibular body of rabbit hemi-mandibles: 12 mm×5 mm, 12 mm×8 mm, and 15 mm×10 mm. The hemi-mandibles were tested to failure in 3-point flexure. The 12 mm×5 mm defect was then chosen for the defect size created in the mandibles of 26 rabbits with or without cautery of the defect margins and bone regeneration was assessed after 6 and 12 weeks. Regenerated bone density and volume were evaluated using radiography, micro-computed tomography, and histology.
RESULTS:
Flexural strength of the 12 mm×5 mm defect was similar to its contralateral; whereas the 12 mm×8 mm and 15 mm×10 mm groups carried significantly less load than their respective contralaterals (P<0.05). This demonstrated that the 12 mm×5 mm defect did not significantly compromise mandibular mechanical integrity. Significantly less (P<0.05) bone was regenerated at 6 weeks in cauterized defect margins compared to controls without cautery. After 12 weeks, the bone volume of the group with cautery increased to that of the control without cautery after 6 weeks.
CONCLUSION
An empty defect size of 12 mm×5 mm in the rabbit mandibular model maintains sufficient mechanical stability to not require additional stabilization. However, this defect size allows for bone regeneration across the defect. Cautery of the defect only delays regeneration by 6 weeks suggesting that the performance of bone graft materials in mandibular defects of this size should be considered with caution.
2.Are critical size bone notch defects possible in the rabbit mandible?
Patricia L CARLISLE ; Teja GUDA ; David T SILLIMAN ; Robert G HALE ; Pamela R BROWN BAER
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2019;45(2):97-107
OBJECTIVES: Small animal maxillofacial models, such as non-segmental critical size defects (CSDs) in the rabbit mandible, need to be standardized for use as preclinical models of bone regeneration to mimic clinical conditions such as maxillofacial trauma. The objective of this study is the establishment of a mechanically competent CSD model in the rabbit mandible to allow standardized evaluation of bone regeneration therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sizes of bony defect were generated in the mandibular body of rabbit hemi-mandibles: 12 mm×5 mm, 12 mm×8 mm, and 15 mm×10 mm. The hemi-mandibles were tested to failure in 3-point flexure. The 12 mm×5 mm defect was then chosen for the defect size created in the mandibles of 26 rabbits with or without cautery of the defect margins and bone regeneration was assessed after 6 and 12 weeks. Regenerated bone density and volume were evaluated using radiography, micro-computed tomography, and histology. RESULTS: Flexural strength of the 12 mm×5 mm defect was similar to its contralateral; whereas the 12 mm×8 mm and 15 mm×10 mm groups carried significantly less load than their respective contralaterals (P<0.05). This demonstrated that the 12 mm×5 mm defect did not significantly compromise mandibular mechanical integrity. Significantly less (P<0.05) bone was regenerated at 6 weeks in cauterized defect margins compared to controls without cautery. After 12 weeks, the bone volume of the group with cautery increased to that of the control without cautery after 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: An empty defect size of 12 mm×5 mm in the rabbit mandibular model maintains sufficient mechanical stability to not require additional stabilization. However, this defect size allows for bone regeneration across the defect. Cautery of the defect only delays regeneration by 6 weeks suggesting that the performance of bone graft materials in mandibular defects of this size should be considered with caution.
Animals
;
Bone Density
;
Bone Regeneration
;
Cautery
;
Mandible
;
Rabbits
;
Radiography
;
Regeneration
;
Transplants
3.Investigation of a pre-clinical mandibular bone notch defect model in miniature pigs: clinical computed tomography, micro-computed tomography, and histological evaluation.
Patricia L. CARLISLE ; Teja GUDA ; David T. SILLIMAN ; Wen LIEN ; Robert G. HALE ; Pamela R. BROWN BAER
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2016;42(1):20-30
OBJECTIVES: To validate a critical-size mandibular bone defect model in miniature pigs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bilateral notch defects were produced in the mandible of dentally mature miniature pigs. The right mandibular defect remained untreated while the left defect received an autograft. Bone healing was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) at 4 and 16 weeks, and by micro-CT and non-decalcified histology at 16 weeks. RESULTS: In both the untreated and autograft treated groups, mineralized tissue volume was reduced significantly at 4 weeks post-surgery, but was comparable to the pre-surgery levels after 16 weeks. After 16 weeks, CT analysis indicated that significantly greater bone was regenerated in the autograft treated defect than in the untreated defect (P=0.013). Regardless of the treatment, the cortical bone was superior to the defect remodeled over 16 weeks to compensate for the notch defect. CONCLUSION: The presence of considerable bone healing in both treated and untreated groups suggests that this model is inadequate as a critical-size defect. Despite healing and adaptation, the original bone geometry and quality of the pre-injured mandible was not obtained. On the other hand, this model is justified for evaluating accelerated healing and mitigating the bone remodeling response, which are both important considerations for dental implant restorations.
Autografts
;
Bone Regeneration
;
Bone Remodeling
;
Dental Implants
;
Hand
;
Mandible
;
Swine*