Željka Perić Kačarević

Bone substitutes and barrier membranes are widely used in dental regeneration procedures. New materials are constantly being developed to provide the most optimal surgical outcomes. One of these developments is the addition of hyaluronate (HA) to the bovine bone graft, which has beneficial wound healing and handling properties. However, an acidic environment that is potentially produced by the HA is known to increase the degradation of magnesium metal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential risk for the addition of HA to the bovine bone graft on the degradation rate and hence the efficacy of a new biodegradable magnesium metal GBR membrane. pH and conductivity measurements were made in vitro for samples placed in phosphate-buffered solutions. These in vitro tests showed that the combination of the bovine graft with HA resulted in an alkaline environment for the concentrations that were used. The combination was also tested in a clinical setting. The use of the magnesium metal membrane in combination with the tested grafting materials achieved successful treatment in these patients and no adverse effects were observed in vivo for regenerative treatments with or without HA. Magnesium based biodegradable GBR membranes can be safely used in combination with bovine graft with or without hyaluronate.

Following trauma, chronic periapical process, or tooth extraction, a large loss of bone volume is noticed during the healing process. To facilitate the placement of dental implants, various surgical procedures are used for an optimal alveolar ridge profile, while maintaining adequate bone dimensions. The main aim of this study was to determine the healing ability (histologically and immunohistologically) of alveolar bone defects during augmentation with two different biomaterials: injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and anorganic bovine bone (ABB). Thirty-eight subjects were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received the tested bone substitute biomaterial (BSB), i.e., BCP (maxresorb inject®), and the second group received an alternative to the gold standard, i.e., ABB (Bio-Oss®). The histopathological, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analyses gave comparable results for these bone substitute materials in terms of newly formed bone: (BCP: 39.91 ± 8.49%, ABB: 41.73 ± 13.99%), residual biomaterial (BCP: 28.61 ± 11.38%, ABB: 31.72 ± 15.52%), and soft tissue (BCP: 31.49 ± 11.09%, ABB: 26.54 ± 7.25%), with no significant difference found between the groups (p < 0.05, t-test), proving that BCP is equally suitable and successful for alveolar bone regeneration.