Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:51:35.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bone Healing Following Different Types of Osteotomy: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Three-Dimensional SEM Analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2016

Marko Blaskovic ,
Dragana Gabrić ,
Nichola J. Coleman ,
Ian J. Slipper ,
Mitko Mladenov  and
Elizabeta Gjorgievska
Marko Blaskovic
Affiliation:
Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia, Ivana Gundulića 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
Dragana Gabrić
Affiliation:
Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia, Ivana Gundulića 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
Nichola J. Coleman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of Greenwich, Maritime, Gillingham, Chatham ME4 4TB, Central Ave, Gillingham, Chatham ME4, UK
Ian J. Slipper
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of Greenwich, Maritime, Gillingham, Chatham ME4 4TB, Central Ave, Gillingham, Chatham ME4, UK
Mitko Mladenov
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University “Ss Cyril and Methodius” Skopje, Arhimedova, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Elizabeta Gjorgievska*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Dentistry, University “Ss Cyril and Methodius” Skopje, Vodnjanska 17, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
*
*Corresponding author. egjorgievska@stomfak.ukim.edu.mk
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare dynamics of the bone healing process after different types of osteotomies. In total, 24 Wistar rats were subjected to different types of osteotomy performed with standard steel bur, piezosurgery, contact, and non-contact Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser ablation. The animals were randomly divided into four groups, to be euthanized immediately after the procedure, or at 1, 2, or 3 weeks after surgery. The obtained bone samples were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Immediately after surgery, there were significant differences in the appearance of the bone defects, with presence of bone fragments and debris after standard steel bur preparation, compared with the clean smooth walls and relatively sharp edges in all other groups. The initial bone formation in defects prepared by piezosurgery was observed to be the most rapid. After 3 weeks, all bone defects were completely restored; although, differences in the healing pattern were noted, with a modest initial delay in healing after laser preparation. The first stage of the bone healing process was delayed when contact and non-contact Er:YAG laser modes were used and accelerated by piezosurgery; however, the results after 3 weeks demonstrated similar restitution of defects in all tested groups.

Keywords

animal modelslaserpiezoelectric surgerybone healing
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 1170 - 1178
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barone, C.M., Jimenez, D.F., Yule, G.J. & Strauch, B. (1997). Analysis of bone formation after cranial osteotomies with a high-speed drill. J Craniofac Surg 8, 466–470.Google Scholar
Choi, B. & Welch, A.J. (2001). Analysis of thermal relaxation during laser irradiation of tissue. Lasers Surg Med 29, 351–359.Google Scholar
Convissar, R.A. (2004). The biologic rationale for the use of lasers in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 48, 771–794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Mello, E.D., Pagnoncelli, R.M., Munin, E., Filho, M.S., de Mello, G.P., Arisawa, E.A. & de Oliveira, M.G. (2008). Comparative histological analysis of bone healing of standardized bone defects with the Er:YAG laser and steel burs. Lasers Med Sci 23, 253–260.Google Scholar
el Montaser, M.A., Devlin, H., Sloan, P. & Dickinson, M.R. (1997). Pattern of healing of calvarial bone in the rat following application of the erbium-YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 21, 255–261.Google Scholar
Esteves, J.C., Marcantonio, E. Jr, de Souza Faloni, A.P., Rocha, F.R., Marcantonio, R.A., Wilk, K. & Intini, G. (2013). Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling—histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med 11, 221.Google Scholar
Frentzen, M., Götz, W., Ivanenko, M., Afilal, S., Werner, M. & Hering, P. (2003). Osteotomy with 80-micros CO2 laser pulses—histological results. Lasers Med Sci 18, 119–124.Google Scholar
Gabrić Pandurić, D., Bago, I., Katanec, D., Zabkar, J., Miletić, I. & Anić, I. (2012). Comparison of Er:YAG laser and surgical drill for osteotomy in oral surgery: An experimental study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70, 2515–2521.Google Scholar
Gjorgievska, E.S., Nicholson, J.W., Apostolska, S.M., Coleman, N.J., Booth, S.E., Slipper, I.J. & Mladenov, M.I. (2013). Interfacial properties of three different bioactive dentine substitutes. Microsc Microanal 19, 1450–1457.Google Scholar
Gonzales-Garcia, A., Diniz-Freitas, M., Somoza-Martin, M. & Garcia-Garcia, A. (2008). Piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy in alveolar distraction in a series of 17 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23, 891–896.Google Scholar
Iaria, G. (2008). Clinical, morphological, and ultrastructural aspects with the use of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers in restorative dentistry. Gen Dent 56, 636–639.Google Scholar
Kang, H.W., Oh, J. & Welch, A.J. (2008). Investigations on laser hard tissue ablation under various environments. Phys Med Biol 53, 3381–3390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerawala, C.J., Martin, I.C., Allan, W. & Williams, E.D. (1999). The effects of operator technique and bur design on temperature during osseous preparation for osteosynthesis self-tapping screws. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondo, S., Okada, Y., Iseki, H., Hori, T., Takakura, K., Kobayashi, A. & Nagata, H. (2000). Thermological study of drilling bone tissue with a high-speed drill. Neurosurg 46, 1162–1168.Google Scholar
Mainetti, T., Lang, N.P., Bengazi, F., Sbricoli, L., Soto Cantero, L. & Botticelli, D. (2015). Immediate loading of implants installed in a healed alveolar bony ridge or immediately after tooth extraction: An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 26, 435–441.Google Scholar
Pandurić, D.G., Juric, I.B., Music, S., Molčanov, K., Sušic, M. & Anic, I. (2014). Morphological and ultrastructural comparative analysis of bone tissue after Er:YAG laser and surgical drill osteotomy. Photomed Laser Surg 32, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preti, G., Martinasso, G., Peirone, B., Navone, R., Manzella, C., Muzio, G., Russo, C., Canuto, R.A. & Schierano, G. (2007). Cytokines and growth factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants positioned using piezoelectric bone surgery versus a drill technique: A pilot study in minipigs. J Periodontol 78, 716–722.Google Scholar
Rahnama, M., Czupkałło, Ł., Czajkowski, L., Grasza, J. & Wallner, J. (2013). The use of piezosurgery as an alternative method of minimally invasive surgery in the authors’ experience. Videosurg Other Miniinv Tech 8, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romeo, U., Del Vecchio, A., Palaia, G., Tenore, G., Visca, P. & Maggiore, C. (2009). Bone damage induced by different cutting instruments—an in vitro study. Braz Dent J 20, 162–168.Google Scholar
Rupprecht, S., Tangermann, K., Kessler, P., Neukam, F.W. & Wiltfang, J. (2003). Er:YAG laser osteotomy directed by sensor controlled systems. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31, 337–342.Google Scholar
Sasaki, K.M., Aoki, A., Ichinose, S. & Ishikawa, I. (2002 a). Ultrastructural analysis of bone tissue irradiated by Er:YAG. Lasers Surg Med 31, 322–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sasaki, K.M., Aoki, A., Ichinose, S., Yoshino, T., Yamada, S. & Ishikawa, I. (2002 b). Scanning electron microscopy and Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy analysis of bone removal using Er:YAG and CO2 lasers. J Periodontol 73, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, F. (2008). Bone development and its relation to fracture repair. The role of mesenchymal osteoblasts and surface osteoblasts. Eur Cell Mater 15, 53–76.Google Scholar
Sohn, D.S., Ahn, M.R., Lee, W.H., Yeo, D.S. & Lim, S.Y. (2007). Piezoelectric osteotomy for intraoral harvesting of bone blocks. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 27, 127–131.Google ScholarPubMed
Stopp, S., Deppe, H. & Lueth, T. (2008). A new concept for navigated laser surgery. Lasers Med Sci 23, 261–266.Google Scholar
Stübinger, S. (2010). Advances in bone surgery: The Er:YAG laser in oral surgery and implant dentistry. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2, 47–62.Google Scholar
Stübinger, S., Ghanaati, S., Saldamli, B., Kirkpatrick, C.J. & Sader, R. (2009). Er: YAG laser osteotomy: Preliminary clinical and histological results of a new technique for contact-free bone surgery. Eur Surg Res 42, 150–156.Google Scholar
Stübinger, S., Landes, C., Seitz, O. & Sader, R. (2007). Er:YAG laser osteotomomy for intraoral bone grafting procedures: A case series with a fiber-optic delivery system. J Periodontol 78, 2389–2394.Google Scholar
Sulewski, J.G. (2000). Historical survey of laser dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 44, 717–752.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, T. (2004). Technological characteristics and clinical indications of piezoelectric bone surgery. Minerva Stomatol 53, 207.Google Scholar
Vercellotti, T., Nevins, M.L., Kim, D.M., Nevins, M., Wada, K., Schenk, R.K. & Fiorellini, J.P. (2005). Osseous response following resective therapy with piezosurgery. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25, 543–549.Google Scholar
Yoshino, T., Aoki, A., Oda, S., Takasaki, A.A., Mizutani, K., Sasaki, K.M., Kinoshita, A., Watanabe, H., Ishikawa, I. & Izumi, Y. (2009). Long-term histologic analysis of bone tissue alteration and healing following Er:YAG laser irradiation compared to electrosurgery. J Periodontol 80, 82–92.Google Scholar