An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model
Identifieur interne : 006E98 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006E97; suivant : 006E99An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model
Auteurs : Bo Wen ; Matthias Karl ; David Pendrys ; David Shafer ; Martin Freilich ; Liisa KuhnSource :
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials [ 1552-4973 ] ; 2011-05.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Acetic acid, Alveolar ridge, Alveolar ridge augmentation, Animal model, Animal models, Best biomaterial scaffold, Biological safety cabinet, Biomaterial, Biomaterial scaffolds, Biomaterials, Biomed mater, Biomedical materials research, Bone, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone growth, Bone height, Bone marrow aspirate, Bone regeneration, Bone volume, Circumferential manner, Clin, Connecticut health center, Delivery systems, Dental implant, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Different scaffolds, Different test groups, Dos, Dose response study, Drug deliv, Effective dose, Elisa testing, Glycol, Growth factor, High doses, Histopathological analysis, Human bone, Hydrogel, Implant, Implant combination, Implant placement, Implant surface, Implantation, Large grit, Lateral surface, Mandible, Mandible model, Mandibular, Mandibular bone, Masseter muscle, Maxillofacial surgery, Maximum volume, Mechanical strength, Microct, Mineralized tissue, Monoclonal antibody, Online issue, Oral maxillofac surg, Peghydrogel, Polyethylene glycol, Polyethylene glycol hydrogel, Present study, Progenitor cells, Quantitative analysis, Recombinant, Regeneration, Release rate, Release rates, Release studies, Residual ridge resorption, Same dose, Same manner, Scaffold, Scaffold comparison study, Scaffold material, Scaffold materials, Screw implant, Screw implants, Slactive, Slactive screw scaffold, Small size, Soft tissues, Standard deviation, Standard deviations, Surgical, Surgical procedures, Threshold dose, Titanium, Tooth extraction, Total percent release, Total tissue volume, Total volume, Vertical bone, Vertical bone augmentation, Vertical bone growth, Vivo, Vivo bone, Vivo results, Vivo scaffold comparison study, Vivo studies, Wiley periodicals.
- Teeft :
- Acetic acid, Alveolar ridge, Alveolar ridge augmentation, Animal model, Animal models, Best biomaterial scaffold, Biological safety cabinet, Biomaterial, Biomaterial scaffolds, Biomaterials, Biomed mater, Biomedical materials research, Bone, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone growth, Bone height, Bone marrow aspirate, Bone regeneration, Bone volume, Circumferential manner, Clin, Connecticut health center, Delivery systems, Dental implant, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Different scaffolds, Different test groups, Dos, Dose response study, Drug deliv, Effective dose, Elisa testing, Glycol, Growth factor, High doses, Histopathological analysis, Human bone, Hydrogel, Implant, Implant combination, Implant placement, Implant surface, Implantation, Large grit, Lateral surface, Mandible, Mandible model, Mandibular, Mandibular bone, Masseter muscle, Maxillofacial surgery, Maximum volume, Mechanical strength, Microct, Mineralized tissue, Monoclonal antibody, Online issue, Oral maxillofac surg, Peghydrogel, Polyethylene glycol, Polyethylene glycol hydrogel, Present study, Progenitor cells, Quantitative analysis, Recombinant, Regeneration, Release rate, Release rates, Release studies, Residual ridge resorption, Same dose, Same manner, Scaffold, Scaffold comparison study, Scaffold material, Scaffold materials, Screw implant, Screw implants, Slactive, Slactive screw scaffold, Small size, Soft tissues, Standard deviation, Standard deviations, Surgical, Surgical procedures, Threshold dose, Titanium, Tooth extraction, Total percent release, Total tissue volume, Total volume, Vertical bone, Vertical bone augmentation, Vertical bone growth, Vivo, Vivo bone, Vivo results, Vivo scaffold comparison study, Vivo studies, Wiley periodicals.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for in vivo bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between in vitro BMP‐2 release rates and in vivo results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While in vitro BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful in vivo was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The in vitro release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the in vivo dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31817
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title><author><name sortKey="Wen, Bo" sort="Wen, Bo" uniqKey="Wen B" first="Bo" last="Wen">Bo Wen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Karl, Matthias" sort="Karl, Matthias" uniqKey="Karl M" first="Matthias" last="Karl">Matthias Karl</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pendrys, David" sort="Pendrys, David" uniqKey="Pendrys D" first="David" last="Pendrys">David Pendrys</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Shafer, David" sort="Shafer, David" uniqKey="Shafer D" first="David" last="Shafer">David Shafer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Freilich, Martin" sort="Freilich, Martin" uniqKey="Freilich M" first="Martin" last="Freilich">Martin Freilich</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kuhn, Liisa" sort="Kuhn, Liisa" uniqKey="Kuhn L" first="Liisa" last="Kuhn">Liisa Kuhn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: LKuhn@uchc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/jbm.b.31817</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006E98</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006E98</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title><author><name sortKey="Wen, Bo" sort="Wen, Bo" uniqKey="Wen B" first="Bo" last="Wen">Bo Wen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Karl, Matthias" sort="Karl, Matthias" uniqKey="Karl M" first="Matthias" last="Karl">Matthias Karl</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pendrys, David" sort="Pendrys, David" uniqKey="Pendrys D" first="David" last="Pendrys">David Pendrys</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Shafer, David" sort="Shafer, David" uniqKey="Shafer D" first="David" last="Shafer">David Shafer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Freilich, Martin" sort="Freilich, Martin" uniqKey="Freilich M" first="Martin" last="Freilich">Martin Freilich</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kuhn, Liisa" sort="Kuhn, Liisa" uniqKey="Kuhn L" first="Liisa" last="Kuhn">Liisa Kuhn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: LKuhn@uchc.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS</title><idno type="ISSN">1552-4973</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-4981</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">97B</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="315">315</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="326">326</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>Hoboken</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-05">2011-05</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1552-4973</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1552-4973</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Acetic acid</term><term>Alveolar ridge</term><term>Alveolar ridge augmentation</term><term>Animal model</term><term>Animal models</term><term>Best biomaterial scaffold</term><term>Biological safety cabinet</term><term>Biomaterial</term><term>Biomaterial scaffolds</term><term>Biomaterials</term><term>Biomed mater</term><term>Biomedical materials research</term><term>Bone</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone growth</term><term>Bone height</term><term>Bone marrow aspirate</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Bone volume</term><term>Circumferential manner</term><term>Clin</term><term>Connecticut health center</term><term>Delivery systems</term><term>Dental implant</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Different scaffolds</term><term>Different test groups</term><term>Dos</term><term>Dose response study</term><term>Drug deliv</term><term>Effective dose</term><term>Elisa testing</term><term>Glycol</term><term>Growth factor</term><term>High doses</term><term>Histopathological analysis</term><term>Human bone</term><term>Hydrogel</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant combination</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant surface</term><term>Implantation</term><term>Large grit</term><term>Lateral surface</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandible model</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular bone</term><term>Masseter muscle</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Maximum volume</term><term>Mechanical strength</term><term>Microct</term><term>Mineralized tissue</term><term>Monoclonal antibody</term><term>Online issue</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Peghydrogel</term><term>Polyethylene glycol</term><term>Polyethylene glycol hydrogel</term><term>Present study</term><term>Progenitor cells</term><term>Quantitative analysis</term><term>Recombinant</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Release rate</term><term>Release rates</term><term>Release studies</term><term>Residual ridge resorption</term><term>Same dose</term><term>Same manner</term><term>Scaffold</term><term>Scaffold comparison study</term><term>Scaffold material</term><term>Scaffold materials</term><term>Screw implant</term><term>Screw implants</term><term>Slactive</term><term>Slactive screw scaffold</term><term>Small size</term><term>Soft tissues</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Standard deviations</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Threshold dose</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Total percent release</term><term>Total tissue volume</term><term>Total volume</term><term>Vertical bone</term><term>Vertical bone augmentation</term><term>Vertical bone growth</term><term>Vivo</term><term>Vivo bone</term><term>Vivo results</term><term>Vivo scaffold comparison study</term><term>Vivo studies</term><term>Wiley periodicals</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Acetic acid</term><term>Alveolar ridge</term><term>Alveolar ridge augmentation</term><term>Animal model</term><term>Animal models</term><term>Best biomaterial scaffold</term><term>Biological safety cabinet</term><term>Biomaterial</term><term>Biomaterial scaffolds</term><term>Biomaterials</term><term>Biomed mater</term><term>Biomedical materials research</term><term>Bone</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone growth</term><term>Bone height</term><term>Bone marrow aspirate</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Bone volume</term><term>Circumferential manner</term><term>Clin</term><term>Connecticut health center</term><term>Delivery systems</term><term>Dental implant</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Different scaffolds</term><term>Different test groups</term><term>Dos</term><term>Dose response study</term><term>Drug deliv</term><term>Effective dose</term><term>Elisa testing</term><term>Glycol</term><term>Growth factor</term><term>High doses</term><term>Histopathological analysis</term><term>Human bone</term><term>Hydrogel</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant combination</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant surface</term><term>Implantation</term><term>Large grit</term><term>Lateral surface</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandible model</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular bone</term><term>Masseter muscle</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Maximum volume</term><term>Mechanical strength</term><term>Microct</term><term>Mineralized tissue</term><term>Monoclonal antibody</term><term>Online issue</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Peghydrogel</term><term>Polyethylene glycol</term><term>Polyethylene glycol hydrogel</term><term>Present study</term><term>Progenitor cells</term><term>Quantitative analysis</term><term>Recombinant</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Release rate</term><term>Release rates</term><term>Release studies</term><term>Residual ridge resorption</term><term>Same dose</term><term>Same manner</term><term>Scaffold</term><term>Scaffold comparison study</term><term>Scaffold material</term><term>Scaffold materials</term><term>Screw implant</term><term>Screw implants</term><term>Slactive</term><term>Slactive screw scaffold</term><term>Small size</term><term>Soft tissues</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Standard deviations</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Threshold dose</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Total percent release</term><term>Total tissue volume</term><term>Total volume</term><term>Vertical bone</term><term>Vertical bone augmentation</term><term>Vertical bone growth</term><term>Vivo</term><term>Vivo bone</term><term>Vivo results</term><term>Vivo scaffold comparison study</term><term>Vivo studies</term><term>Wiley periodicals</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for in vivo bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between in vitro BMP‐2 release rates and in vivo results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While in vitro BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful in vivo was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The in vitro release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the in vivo dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>slactive</json:string><json:string>recombinant</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>bone volume</json:string><json:string>slactive screw scaffold</json:string><json:string>biomaterial</json:string><json:string>peghydrogel</json:string><json:string>mandible model</json:string><json:string>scaffold comparison study</json:string><json:string>microct</json:string><json:string>scaffold</json:string><json:string>bone formation</json:string><json:string>bone height</json:string><json:string>dose response study</json:string><json:string>hydrogel</json:string><json:string>bone regeneration</json:string><json:string>screw implants</json:string><json:string>implant surface</json:string><json:string>regeneration</json:string><json:string>biomaterials</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>release studies</json:string><json:string>biomaterial scaffolds</json:string><json:string>mandibular bone</json:string><json:string>bone growth</json:string><json:string>dos</json:string><json:string>implantation</json:string><json:string>scaffold materials</json:string><json:string>dental implant</json:string><json:string>release rate</json:string><json:string>animal model</json:string><json:string>different scaffolds</json:string><json:string>biomedical materials research</json:string><json:string>threshold dose</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>release rates</json:string><json:string>vivo studies</json:string><json:string>human bone</json:string><json:string>polyethylene glycol</json:string><json:string>online issue</json:string><json:string>same dose</json:string><json:string>tooth extraction</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>screw implant</json:string><json:string>lateral surface</json:string><json:string>growth factor</json:string><json:string>best biomaterial scaffold</json:string><json:string>vivo results</json:string><json:string>bone density</json:string><json:string>vivo</json:string><json:string>bone</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>maximum volume</json:string><json:string>delivery systems</json:string><json:string>biological safety cabinet</json:string><json:string>vivo bone</json:string><json:string>bone marrow aspirate</json:string><json:string>drug deliv</json:string><json:string>vertical bone growth</json:string><json:string>alveolar ridge</json:string><json:string>circumferential manner</json:string><json:string>acetic acid</json:string><json:string>residual ridge resorption</json:string><json:string>polyethylene glycol hydrogel</json:string><json:string>vivo scaffold comparison study</json:string><json:string>monoclonal antibody</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>high doses</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>small size</json:string><json:string>vertical bone augmentation</json:string><json:string>different test groups</json:string><json:string>connecticut health center</json:string><json:string>surgical procedures</json:string><json:string>masseter muscle</json:string><json:string>soft tissues</json:string><json:string>quantitative analysis</json:string><json:string>alveolar ridge augmentation</json:string><json:string>total volume</json:string><json:string>mineralized tissue</json:string><json:string>wiley periodicals</json:string><json:string>histopathological analysis</json:string><json:string>standard deviation</json:string><json:string>standard deviations</json:string><json:string>total percent release</json:string><json:string>total tissue volume</json:string><json:string>scaffold material</json:string><json:string>vertical bone</json:string><json:string>mechanical strength</json:string><json:string>biomed mater</json:string><json:string>progenitor cells</json:string><json:string>implant combination</json:string><json:string>effective dose</json:string><json:string>animal models</json:string><json:string>elisa testing</json:string><json:string>large grit</json:string><json:string>dental medicine</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac surg</json:string><json:string>same manner</json:string><json:string>glycol</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Bo Wen</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Matthias Karl</name><affiliations><json:string>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>David Pendrys</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>David Shafer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Martin Freilich</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Liisa Kuhn</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</json:string><json:string>E-mail: LKuhn@uchc.edu</json:string><json:string>Correspondence address: Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>growth factor</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>animal model</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>controlled release</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JBM31817</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-ZNVX07VW-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for in vivo bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between in vitro BMP‐2 release rates and in vivo results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While in vitro BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful in vivo was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The in vitro release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the in vivo dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>216</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1433</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><score>9.592</score><pdfWordCount>7762</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>46799</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>12</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>612 x 810 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title><pmid><json:string>21394902</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1552-4981</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1552-4973</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1552-4981</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JBM</json:string></publisherId><volume>97B</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>315</first><last>326</last><total>12</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2011</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Division of Implant Dentistry</json:string><json:string>University of Connecticut</json:string><json:string>Department of Orthopaedic Surgery</json:string><json:string>ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland</json:string><json:string>ConMed Corporation</json:string><json:string>Hans Knoell Institute, Jena, Germany</json:string><json:string>University of Connecticut Health Center</json:string><json:string>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Nanjing University</json:string><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Our</json:string><json:string>Vilmaris Diaz-Doran</json:string><json:string>David Shafer</json:string><json:string>Matthias Karl</json:string><json:string>Peter Hortschansky</json:string><json:string>Douglas J. Adams</json:string><json:string>Committee</json:string><json:string>Qin Amy</json:string><json:string>To</json:string><json:string>David Pendrys</json:string><json:string>Martin Freilich</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>NV</json:string><json:string>Erlangen</json:string><json:string>China</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>Basel</json:string><json:string>Tokyo</json:string><json:string>Reno</json:string><json:string>York</json:string><json:string>Bassersdorf</json:string><json:string>PA</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-ZNVX07VW-9</json:string></ark><categories><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - nephrologie. maladies des voies urinaires</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/jbm.b.31817</json:string></doi><id>DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>Hoboken</pubPlace><availability><licence>Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2011-05"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title><title level="a" type="short" xml:lang="en">RAT Mandible Model for Evaluating Scaffolds for BMP‐2 Delivery</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Bo</forename><surname>Wen</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China<address><country key="CN"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Matthias</forename><surname>Karl</surname></persName><affiliation>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany<address><country key="DE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">David</forename><surname>Pendrys</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">David</forename><surname>Shafer</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Martin</forename><surname>Freilich</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Liisa</forename><surname>Kuhn</surname></persName><email>LKuhn@uchc.edu</email><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-ZNVX07VW-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/jbm.b.31817</idno><idno type="unit">JBM31817</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JBM.JBM31817.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS</title><idno type="pISSN">1552-4973</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-4981</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1552-4981</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1002/jbm.b.v97b.2</idno><idno type="product">JBM</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">97B</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="315">315</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="326">326</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><pubPlace>Hoboken</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-05"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p>The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for <hi rend="italic">in vivo</hi> bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between <hi rend="italic">in vitro</hi> BMP‐2 release rates and <hi rend="italic">in vivo</hi> results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While <hi rend="italic">in vitro</hi> BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful <hi rend="italic">in vivo</hi> was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The <hi rend="italic">in vitro</hi> release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the <hi rend="italic">in vivo</hi> dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="kwd1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="kwd2">growth factor</term><term xml:id="kwd3">animal model</term><term xml:id="kwd4">bone</term><term xml:id="kwd5">controlled release</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisherName><publisherLoc>Hoboken</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1552-4981</doi><issn type="print">1552-4973</issn><issn type="electronic">1552-4981</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JBM"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART B: APPLIED BIOMATERIALS">Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials</title><title type="short">J. Biomed. Mater. Res.</title></titleGroup><selfCitationGroup><citation type="ancestor" xml:id="cit1"><journalTitle>Journal of Biomedical Materials Research</journalTitle><accessionId ref="info:x-wiley/issn/00219304">0021-9304</accessionId><accessionId ref="info:x-wiley/issn/10974636">1097-4636</accessionId><pubYear year="2004">2004</pubYear></citation></selfCitationGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="20"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/jbm.b.v97b.2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="97">97B</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-05">May 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="130" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/jbm.b.31817</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JBM31817"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="12"></count></countGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="manuscriptReceived" date="2010-06-27"></event><event type="manuscriptRevised" date="2010-11-14"></event><event type="manuscriptAccepted" date="2010-12-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.4.8 mode:FullText" date="2011-04-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-03-10"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-03-10"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-04-05"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-29"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-23"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">315</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">326</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JBM.JBM31817.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="37"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="9059"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">RAT Mandible Model for Evaluating Scaffolds for BMP‐2 Delivery</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1"><personName><givenNames>Bo</givenNames><familyName>Wen</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au2" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af2"><personName><givenNames>Matthias</givenNames><familyName>Karl</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au3" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af3"><personName><givenNames>David</givenNames><familyName>Pendrys</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au4" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af4"><personName><givenNames>David</givenNames><familyName>Shafer</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au5" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af3"><personName><givenNames>Martin</givenNames><familyName>Freilich</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="au6" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af3" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Liisa</givenNames><familyName>Kuhn</familyName></personName><contactDetails><email>LKuhn@uchc.edu</email></contactDetails></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="CN" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af2" countryCode="DE" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af3" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af4" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">growth factor</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">animal model</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4">bone</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd5">controlled release</keyword></keywordGroup><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>Straumann AG (Basel, Switzerland)</fundingAgency></fundingInfo><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for <i>in vivo</i> bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between <i>in vitro</i> BMP‐2 release rates and <i>in vivo</i> results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While <i>in vitro</i> BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful <i>in vivo</i> was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The <i>in vitro</i> release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the <i>in vivo</i> dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>RAT Mandible Model for Evaluating Scaffolds for BMP‐2 Delivery</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bo</namePart><namePart type="family">Wen</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Division of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Matthias</namePart><namePart type="family">Karl</namePart><affiliation>Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David</namePart><namePart type="family">Pendrys</namePart><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David</namePart><namePart type="family">Shafer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Martin</namePart><namePart type="family">Freilich</namePart><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Liisa</namePart><namePart type="family">Kuhn</namePart><affiliation>Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: LKuhn@uchc.edu</affiliation><affiliation>Correspondence address: Center for Regeneration Medicine and Skeletal Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Hoboken</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-05</dateIssued><dateCaptured encoding="w3cdtf">2010-06-27</dateCaptured><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">2010-12-10</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent><extent unit="references">37</extent><extent unit="words">9059</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The purpose of this study was three‐fold: (a) to develop a new small animal model to evaluate dental implant systems that recapitulates aspects of the challenging intraoral environment, (b) screen several scaffolds for in vivo bone forming efficacy when used to deliver non‐glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) together with a miniaturized titanium (Ti) dental implant, and (c) identify correlations between in vitro BMP‐2 release rates and in vivo results. The scaffolds tested were: (1) collagen‐hydroxyapatite composite (Col/HA), (2) polyethylene glycol hydrogel (PEG‐hydrogel), and (3) Col/HA infused with PEG‐hydrogel (Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel). BMP‐2 delivery directly from the Ti implants rather than from the scaffolds was also tested. MicroCT analyses at 4 weeks showed that the maximum volume and height of new bone occurred when BMP‐2 (10 μg) was delivered from the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffolds. BMP‐2 delivery from the Ti implant was not as effective as from the scaffolds. While in vitro BMP‐2 release was highest for the PEG‐hydrogel, the scaffold most successful in vivo was the Col/HA/PEG‐hydrogel scaffold because it had the necessary mechanical strength to perform well in the mandibular bone environment. The in vitro release studies suggested a threshold dose of 5 μg which was borne out by the in vivo dose response studies. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2011.</abstract><note type="funding">Straumann AG (Basel, Switzerland)</note><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>growth factor</topic><topic>animal model</topic><topic>bone</topic><topic>controlled release</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>J. Biomed. Mater. Res.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1552-4973</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1552-4981</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1552-4981</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JBM</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>97B</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>315</start><end>326</end><total>12</total></extent></part></relatedItem><relatedItem type="preceding"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Biomedical Materials Research</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0021-9304</identifier><identifier type="ISSN">1097-4636</identifier><part><date point="end">2004</date></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-ZNVX07VW-9</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/jbm.b.31817</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JBM31817</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 006E98 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006E98 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:DF96F0672C25E0D14378D8B85D1DF4CF54B87E24
|texte= An evaluation of BMP‐2 delivery from scaffolds with miniaturized dental implants in a novel rat mandible model
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |