Article

Mecanobiología de los huesos maxilares. III. Regeneración ósea

Avances en odontoestomatologia 06/2008; DOI: 10.4321/S0213-12852008000300005
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT La mecanobiología ósea se encarga de la interacción entre las señales mecánicas y los mecanismos moleculares en las células del tejido óseo. Las cargas mecánicas actúan sobre las células que se encuentran en el nuevo foco de fractura y sobre las células incluidas en la matriz extracelular, por lo que la influencia mecánica actúa sobre la regeneración y sobre el remodelado, que se encuentran interrelacionados. El presente artículo intenta establecer la relación entre la carga y la expresión molecular durante la regeneración ósea. También, se realiza una revisión de los estudios de distracción alveolar histogénica y de carga en los implantes dentales en la fase de regeneración ósea.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
156 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research in biomaterials and biomechanics has fueled a large part of the significant revolution associated with osseointegrated implants. Additional key areas that may become even more important--such as guided tissue regeneration, growth factors, and tissue engineering--could not be included in this review because of space limitations. All of this work will no doubt continue unabated; indeed, it is probably even accelerating as more clinical applications are found for implant technology and related therapies. An excellent overall summary of oral biology and dental implants recently appeared in a dedicated issue of Advances in Dental Research. Many advances have been made in the understanding of events at the interface between bone and implants and in developing methods for controlling these events. However, several important questions still remain. What is the relationship between tissue structure, matrix composition, and biomechanical properties of the interface? Do surface modifications alter the interfacial tissue structure and composition and the rate at which it forms? If surface modifications change the initial interface structure and composition, are these changes retained? Do surface modifications enhance biomechanical properties of the interface? As current understanding of the bone-implant interface progresses, so will development of proactive implants that can help promote desired outcomes. However, in the midst of the excitement born out of this activity, it is necessary to remember that the needs of the patient must remain paramount. It is also worth noting another as-yet unsatisfied need. With all of the new developments, continuing education of clinicians in the expert use of all of these research advances is needed. For example, in the area of biomechanical treatment planning, there are still no well-accepted biomaterials/biomechanics "building codes" that can be passed on to clinicians. Also, there are no readily available treatment-planning tools that clinicians can use to explore "what-if" scenarios and other design calculations of the sort done in modern engineering. No doubt such approaches could be developed based on materials already in the literature, but unfortunately much of what is done now by clinicians remains empirical. A worthwhile task for the future is to find ways to more effectively deliver products of research into the hands of clinicians.
    The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 15(1):15-46. · 1.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Distraction osteogenesis is a recently advanced principle of bone lengthening in which a bone separated by osteotomy is subjected to slow progressive distraction using an external fixation device. Appropriate mechanical tension-stress is believed not to break the callus but rather to stimulate osteogenesis. To study the molecular features of this process, the expression and localization of the mRNAs encoding osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OC), matrix Gla protein (MGP), osteonectin (ON), and collagen type I and I during distraction osteogenesis were examined by in situ hybridization and Northern blot analysis. The process can be divided into three distinct phases: the lag phase for 7 days between osteotomy and the beginning of distraction, the distraction phase for 21 days, and the consolidation phase for several weeks. The histologic and molecular events taking place during the lag phase were similar to those observed in fracture healing. The osteotomy site was surrounded by external callus consisting of hyaline cartilage. As distraction started at the rate of 0.25 mm/12 h, the cartilaginous callus was elongated, deformed, and eventually separated into proximal and distal segments. The chondrocytes were stretched along the tension vector and became fibroblast-like in shape. Although morphologically these cells were distinguishable from osteogenic cells, they expressed OPN, OC, and alkaline phosphatase mRNAs. As distraction advanced, the cartilaginous callus was progressively replaced by bony callus by endochondral ossification and thereafter new bone was formed directly by intramembranous ossification. OPN mRNA was detected in preosteoblasts and osteoblasts at the boundary between fibrous tissue and new bone. ON, MGP, and OC mRNAs appeared early in the differentiation stage. The variety of cell types expressing mRNA encoding bone matrix proteins in distraction osteogenesis was much greater than that detected in the embryonic bone formation and fracture healing process. Moreover, the levels of OPN, ON, MGP, and OC mRNA expression markedly increased during the distraction phase. These results suggested that mechanical tension-stress modulates cell shape and phenotype, and stimulates the expression of the mRNA for bone matrix proteins.
    Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 09/1998; 13(8):1221-31. · 6.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the volume of hard tissue generated at the time of implant placement in distracted alveolar bone. All patients who underwent distraction osteogenesis between 2000 and 2003 were included. The preoperative bone height, amount of distraction performed, and presence or absence of complications affecting implant placement were recorded. The augmentation achieved was correlated with insufficient bone formation using the Spearman correlation and the Fisher exact test. The study included 43 implants placed in 17 cases of alveolar distraction. Of the 34 implants placed in bone augmented by 4.5 to 6.5 mm, bone defects were observed with 12. All 9 implants placed in ridges augmented by 7 to 10.5 mm demonstrated a bone defect. The "defect" and "no-defect" implant groups differed significantly with respect to preoperative bone height and amount of distraction performed (P < .001 for both). Significantly more defects were formed in bone augmented by > 25% compared to bone augmented by < 25% (P < .001). When considering distraction osteogenesis, augmentation of up to 25% of the initial bone height seems more predictable and less likely to be associated with complications at the time of implant placement. In distractions greater than 25% of the original height, additional treatment should be considered.
    The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 01/2007; 22(1):47-52. · 1.91 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
76 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014