Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Aug;43(8):966-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.11.018. Epub 2014 Apr 12.

Cell viability after osteotomy and bone harvesting: comparison of piezoelectric surgery and conventional bur.

Author information

1
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Periodontology, Service of Odontology, Rothschild Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7 - Denis, Diderot University, U.F.R. of Odontology, Paris, France.
2
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
3
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Oral Medicine & Maxillofacial Surgery Service, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
4
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Stanford Oral Medicine & Maxillofacial Surgery Service, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: jhelms@stanford.edu.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the influence of a piezoelectric device versus a conventional bur on osteocyte viability and osteoblast and osteoclast activity using an in vivo mouse model. Osteotomies were created and bone grafts were harvested using either a conventional bur or a piezoelectric device; the resulting injuries and bone grafts were evaluated over an extended time-course using molecular and cellular assays for cell death (TUNEL assay), cell viability (4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) staining), the onset of mineralization (alkaline phosphatase activity), and bone remodelling (tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase activity). Osteotomies created with a piezoelectric device showed greater osteocyte viability and reduced cell death. Bone grafts harvested with a piezoelectric device exhibited greater short-term cell viability than those harvested with a bur, and exhibited slightly more new bone deposition and bone remodelling. The difference in response of osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts to bone cutting via a bur and via a piezoelectric device is negligible in vivo. Given the improved visibility and the margin of safety afforded by a piezoelectric device, they are the instrument of choice when cutting or harvesting bone to preserve soft tissue.

KEYWORDS:

bone; bone graft; cell viability; cutting; harvesting; in vivo; osteoconduction; osteoinduction; ultrasound

PMID:
24721169
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijom.2013.11.018
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center