1999Journal of Craniofacial SurgeryRequires access

Endochondral vs. Intramembranous Demineralized Bone Matrices as Implants for Osseous Defects

Maria Cristina Nidoli, Frank Farsø Nielsen, Birte Melsen

Open publisher page 15 citations

Abstract

This study focuses on the difference in regenerative capacity between endochondral and intramembranous demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) when implanted into bony defects. It also focuses on the possible influence of the type of skeletal recipient site (orthotopic or heterotopic). Of 34 Wistar rats, 10 served as a source of DBM, and 24 were divided into two groups of 12 animals. In group A identical defects were produced in the parietal bones, whereas in group B the defects were produced in each radius. The right defects were implanted with endochondral DBM and the left defects were implanted with intramembranous DBM. Descriptive and/or histomorphometric analyses were performed by means of light and polarized microscopy, and radiography (group B). Right and left data were compared to disclose differences in bone-healing capacity. The quantitative results demonstrated that endochondral DBM displays a greater regenerative capacity than intramembranous DBM when implanted heterotopically. The different clinical performances of endochondral and intramembranous bone grafts might be explained on the basis of the mechanical rather than the osteoinductive principle. The qualitative results suggest that the type of bone deposition induced by the DBMs is not related to the type of implanted DBM. Recipient site characteristics and/or environmental factors seem decisive in the occurrence of either types of ossification.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study focuses on the difference in regenerative capacity between endochondral and intramembranous demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) when implanted into bony defects. It also focuses on the possible influence of the type of skeletal recipient site (orthotopic or heterotopic). Of 34 Wistar rats, 10 served as a source of DBM, and 24 were divided into two groups of 12 animals. In group A identical defects were produced in the parietal bones, whereas in group B the defects were produced in each radius. The right defects were implanted with endochondral DBM and the left defects were implanted with intramembranous DBM. Descriptive and/or histomorphometric analyses were performed by means of light and polarized microscopy, and radiography (group B). Right and left data were compared to disclose differences in bone-healing capacity. The quantitative results demonstrated that endochondral DBM displays a greater regenerative capacity than intramembranous DBM when implanted heterotopically. The different clinical performances of endochondral and intramembranous bone grafts might be explained on the basis of the mechanical rather than the osteoinductive principle. The qualitative results suggest that the type of bone deposition induced by the DBMs is not related to the type of implanted DBM. Recipient site characteristics and/or environmental factors seem decisive in the occurrence of either types of ossification.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study focuses on the difference in regenerative capacity between endochondral and intramembranous demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) when implanted into bony defects. It also focuses on the possible influence of the type of skeletal recipient site (orthotopic or heterotopic). Of 34 Wistar rats, 10 served as a source of DBM, and 24 were divided into two groups of 12 animals. In group A identical defects were produced in the parietal bones, whereas in group B the defects were produced in each radius. The right defects were implanted with endochondral DBM and the left defects were implanted with intramembranous DBM. Descriptive and/or histomorphometric analyses were performed by means of light and polarized microscopy, and radiography (group B). Right and left data were compared to disclose differences in bone-healing capacity. The quantitative results demonstrated that endochondral DBM displays a greater regenerative capacity than intramembranous DBM when implanted heterotopically. The different clinical performances of endochondral and intramembranous bone grafts might be explained on the basis of the mechanical rather than the osteoinductive principle. The qualitative results suggest that the type of bone deposition induced by the DBMs is not related to the type of implanted DBM. Recipient site characteristics and/or environmental factors seem decisive in the occurrence of either types of ossification.

Key concepts: Intramembranous ossification, Endochondral ossification, Medicine, dBm, Demineralized bone matrix, Anatomy, Regeneration (biology), Dentistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Endochondral vs. Intramembranous Demineralized Bone Matrices as Implants for Osseous Defects — Research Paper | ScholarLens