Impact of bone harvesting methods on cell viability of autogenous bone particles in guided bone regeneration

doi:10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2022.02.012

Abstract

Abstract: A variety of bone substitute materials can be used to repair and reconstruct clinical alveolar bone defects, but in the site with great bony volume insufficiency, it is very important to harvest and add a certain proportion of autogenous bone particles to achieve better clinical outcomes. The approaches to gain autografts include handheld instruments such as chisels and scrapers, rotating instruments such as trephines, piezoelectric instruments, and bone filters. It remains unclear which harvesting methods can provide autografts with the greatest osteoinductive and osteogenic potential in clinical bone augmentation. This review mainly summarized surgical results of different scholars using different methods of bone extraction from different sources of autologous bone, hoping to provide a reference for the selection of tools for bone extraction during clinical guidance of bone regeneration, to obtain the best bone induction effect and improve the quality of bone reconstruction.

Key words: Guided bone regeneration, Autogenous bone grafts, Cell viability, Bone harvesting techniques

Gan Jiawen, Dou Jiaqi, Xu Chenci, Wu Yiqun, Wang Feng. Impact of bone harvesting methods on cell viability of autogenous bone particles in guided bone regeneration[J]. Chinese Journal of Oral Implantology, 2022, 27(1): 58-63.

References

[1] Jake N, Seibert FJ, Lorenzoni M, et al.A modified technique of harvesting tibial cancellous bone and its use for sinus grafting[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001,12(5):488-494. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120509.x.
[2] Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L.Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007,18(4):432-440. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01351.x.
[3] Sakkas A, Wilde F, Heufelder M, et al.Autogenous bone grafts in oral implantology-is it still a "gold standard"? A consecutive review of 279 patients with 456 clinical procedures[J]. Int J Implant Dent, 2017,3(1):23. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-017-0084-4.
[4] Miron RJ, Hedbom E, Saulacic N, et al.Osteogenic potential of autogenous bone grafts harvested with four different surgical techniques[J]. J Dent Res, 2011,90(12):1428-1433. DOI: 10.1177/0022034511422718.
[5] Hassan KS, Kassim A, Al Ogaly AU.A comparative evaluation of immediate dental implant with autogenous versus synthetic guided bone regeneration[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2008,106(5):e8-e15. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.015.
[6] Kuchler U, Schmid C, Buser D, et al.The shape of a bone scraper: an in vitro pilot study using porcine bone chips[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014,43(7):879-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.11.014.
[7] Aghaloo TL, Moy PK.Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2007,22(Suppl):49-70.
[8] Liang C, Lin X, Wang SL, et al.Osteogenic potential of three different autogenous bone particles harvested during implant surgery[J]. Oral Dis, 2017,23(8):1099-1108. DOI: 10.1111/odi.12704.
[9] Anitua E, Carda C, Andia I.A novel drilling procedure and subsequent bone autograft preparation: a technical note[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2007,22(1):138-145.
[10] Oh JH, Fang Y, Jeong SM, et al.The effect of low-speed drilling without irrigation on heat generation: an experimental study[J]. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016,42(1):9-12. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.1.9.
[11] Manzano-Moreno FJ, Herrera-Briones FJ, Linares-Recatala M, et al.Bacterial contamination levels of autogenous bone particles collected by 3 different techniques for harvesting intraoral bone grafts[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015,73(3):424-429. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.10.020.
[12] Chen CH, Coyac BR, Arioka M, et al.A novel osteotomy preparation technique to preserve implant site viability and enhance osteogenesis[J]. J Clin Med, 2019,8:170.DOI: 10.3390/jcm8020170.
[13] Lim HC, Ha KI, Hong JY, et al.Comparison of the bone harvesting capacity of an intraoral bone harvesting device and three different implant drills[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2017,2017:7819080. DOI: 10.1155/2017/7819080.
[14] Tabassum A, Wismeijer D, Hogervorst J, et al.Comparison of proliferation and differentiation of human osteoblast-like cells harvested during implant osteotomy preparation using two different drilling protocols[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2020,35(1):141-149. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7648.
[15] Pellicer-Chover H, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Aloy-Prosper A, et al.Comparison of peri-implant bone loss between conventional drilling with irrigation versus low-speed drilling without irrigation[J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2017,22(6):e730-e736. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21694.
[16] Buser D.20 years of guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry [M]. UK: Quintessence Publishing, 2009.
[17] Graziani F, Cei S, Ivanovski S, et al.A systematic review of the effectiveness of bone collectors[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2007,22(5):729-735.
[18] Cicciù M, Stacchi C, Fiorillo L, et al.Piezoelectric bone surgery for impacted lower third molar extraction compared with conventional rotary instruments: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021,50(1):121-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.03.008.
[19] Valente NA, Cosma L, Nocca G, et al.Piezoelectric device versus conventional osteotomy instruments in the comparison of three different bone harvesting methods: an istomorphometric, phonometric, and chronometric evaluation[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019,34(5):1070-1077. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7309.
[20] Rullo R, Piccirillo A, Femiano F, et al.A comparison between piezoelectric devices and conventional rotary instruments in bone harvesting in patients with lip and palate cleft: a petrospective study with clinical, radiographical, and histological evaluation[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2018,2018:2059464. DOI: 10.1155/2018/2059464.
[21] Maglione M, Bevilacqua L, Dotto F, et al.Observational study on the preparation of the implant site with piezosurgery vs. drill: comparison between the two methods in terms of postoperative pain, surgical times, and operational advantages[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2019,2019:8483658. DOI: 10.1155/2019/8483658.
[22] Al-Moraissi EA, Elmansi YA, Al-Sharaee YA, et al.Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? a systematic review and meta analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016,45(3):383-391. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.005.
[23] Majewski P.Piezoelectric surgery in autogenous bone block grafts[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2014,34(3):355-363. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1279.
[24] Takamoto M, Takechi M, Ohta K, et al.Risk of bacterial contamination of bone harvesting devices used for autogenous bone graft in implant surgery[J]. Head Face Med, 2013,9:3. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-9-3.
[25] Blay A, Tunchel S, Sendyk WR.Viability of autogenous bone grafts obtained by using bone collectors: histological and microbiological study[J]. Pesqui Odontol Bras, 2003,17(3):234-240. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912003000300007.
[26] Manzano-Moreno FJ, Rodríguez-Martínez JB, Ramos-Torrecillas J, et al.Proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of osteoblast-like cells obtained from two techniques for harvesting intraoral bone grafts[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2013,17(5):1349-1356. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0811-4.
[27] Mouraret S, Houschyar KS, Hunter DJ, et al.Cell viability after osteotomy and bone harvesting: comparison of piezoelectric surgery and conventional bur[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014,43(8):966-971. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.11.018.
[28] Moradi Haghgoo J, Arabi SR, Hosseinipanah SM, et al.Comparison of the effect of three autogenous bone harvesting methods on cell viability in rabbits[J]. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2017,11(2):73-77. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2017.014.
[29] Stelzle F, Frenkel C, Riemann M, et al.The effect of load on heat production, thermal effects and expenditure of time during implant site preparation - an experimental ex vivo comparison between piezosurgery and conventional drilling[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014,25(2):e140-148. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12077.