wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/clr Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018;29:300–308.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Accepted: 28 November 2017
Osteogenic efficacy of BMP- 2 mixed with hydrogel and
bone substitute in peri- implant dehiscence defects in dogs:
16 weeks of healing
| Ui-Won Jung
| Daniel S. Thoma
| Christoph H. F.
| Ronald E. Jung
Department of Periodontology, Research
Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College
of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
Department of Fixed and Removable
Prosthodontics and Dental Material
Science, Dental School, University of Zurich,
Ui-Won Jung, Department of Periodontology,
Research Institute for Periodontal
Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei
University, Seoul, South Korea.
This study was financially supported by an
ITI research grant from the ITI foundation
(No. 821- 2012). This work was also supported
by a grant from the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the
Korea government (Ministry of Science,
ICT & Future Planning) (Grant No. NRF-
Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of bone morpho-
genetic protein- 2 (BMP- 2) mixed with either polyethylene glycol hydrogel or synthetic
bone substitute (SBS) on new bone formation in peri- implant dehiscence defects after
16 weeks of healing.
Materials and methods: A guided bone regeneration procedure was performed in box-
type peri- implant defects that were surgically prepared in six beagle dogs. The follow-
ing four experimental groups were used (i) control (no graft), (ii) SBS+hydrogel, (iii)
SBS+BMP- 2/hydrogel and (iv) BMP- 2/SBS+hydrogel. Volumetric analysis using
micro- computed tomography and histomorphometric analysis was performed at
16 weeks post- operatively.
Results: The amount of new bone and the total augmented volume did not differ sig-
nificantly between both BMP- treated groups and the SBS+hydrogel group (p > .05).
Likewise, no histometric differences were observed in the values of new bone area
and bone- to- implant contact ratio among the three augmentation groups (new bone
area: 0.06 ± 0.08, 0.19 ± 0.20, 0.48 ± 0.37 and 0.56 ± 0.60 mm
[mean ± standard de-
viation] in groups 1–4, respectively; bone- to- implant contact: 9.44 ± 11.51%,
19.91 ± 15.19%, 46.31 ± 29.82% and 42.58 ± 26.27% in groups 1–4, respectively).
Conclusion: The osteogenic efficacy of BMP- 2 on the regeneration of peri- implant
bone defects was not detectable after 16 weeks regardless of the carrier materials.
bone morphogenetic protein-2, bone substitutes, dental implants, hydrogel, polyethylene glycol
1 | INTRODUCTION
Dehiscence- type defects are frequently encountered at the coronal
part of an implant placed in a narrow alveolar ridge. The long- term
success of implant therapy requires that the implant surface be sur-
rounded by vital osseous tissue that is sufficiently thick to support the
occlusal load (Glauser et al., 2001). The concept of guided bone regen-
eration (GBR) has been introduced for building osseous tissue around
an implant (Hammerle, Jung & Feloutzis, 2002; Hammerle, Schmid,
Olah & Lang, 1996). A barrier membrane for excluding unwanted soft
tissue and bone grafting material for space creation are key compo-
nents in the GBR procedure. However, it is difficult to manipulate and
customize the sheet- like barrier membrane to fit the variable shape
of a defect during the surgical procedure. In addition, a high preva-
lence of membrane exposure is associated with poor clinical outcomes