Modification and evaluation of an animal model for maxillary sinus floor elevation in Beagle dogs

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To modify a dog model for maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) by selecting a new surgical approach and evaluate the process of the dog model with computed tomography (CT) scans and endoscope. METHODS: CT scans were performed for a total of 2 Beagle cadavers and 4 Beagles in healthy condition before surgery. The data from CT scans in Dicom (digital imaging and communications in medicine) format were input into an interactive Simplant software program to select a candidate site (CS) as a new surgical approach which was located on palatal to the distal dental cusp of the first molar, or buccal to the greater palatine foramen. Each sinus (12 sinuses in total) was treated with maxillary sinus-floor elevation (MSFE), including a palatal gingival margin incision, bone window preparation, sinus membrane elevation, and Bio-Oss grafts. During MSFE, an endoscope was put through the bone window and lateral puncture opening into the maxillary sinus to observe the Schneiderian membrane′s condition and the CS′s position, respectively. Postoperative CT scans for all animals were used to measure the CS′s position, which were compared by paired t test using SAS 9.0 software package. RESULTS: All eleven parameters were measured in the CS′s coronal and sagittal section. Eleven parameters were listed as follows: ① DF and CE (the horizontal distance from CS to the midpoint of the greater palatine foramen and to the palatal alveolar ridge) were (8.129±0.915) mm and (4.868±0.291) mm; ② BC (the residual bone height) was (2.034±0.410) mm; and ③ AB, MN and PQ (the height, width and length of maxillary sinus) were (17.341±0.651) mm, (7.899±0.984) mm and (18.424±1.131) mm; ④MT and NT (the horizontal distance from CS to the internal and external bone wall of the maxillary sinus) were (3.961±0.421) mm and (3.845±0.562) mm; ⑤OP and OQ(the horizontal distance from CS to the anterior and posterior bone edge of the maxillary sinus) were (9.248±1.256) mm and (9.368±1.161) mm. The most important two parameters were DF and BC. There was no significant difference between OP and OQ (the horizontal distance from CS to the anterior and posterior bone edge of the maxillary sinus). There was also no significant difference between MT and NT (the horizontal distance from CS to the internal and external bone wall of the maxillary sinus). Intraoperative views noted the intact, white and opaque sinus membrane in both the Beagle cadavers and Beagles after putting an endoscope through the bone window, and the membrane movement in the middle of the maxillary sinus floor after insertion of an endoscope into the maxillary sinus from the lateral puncture opening. CONCLUSIONS: The CS is an ideal surgical approach for MSFE, and the dog model is more suitable for maxillary sinus research.

Key words: Maxillary sinus floor elevation, Dog model, Candidate site, CT, Endoscope

CLC Number:

R782.6

ZHENG Ji-si, CHIU Han-hsuan, ZHANG Shan-yong, YANG Chi, ZHANG Ying, YU Fei, TIAN Xue-rui. Modification and evaluation of an animal model for maxillary sinus floor elevation in Beagle dogs[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2015, 13(1): 1-7.

References

[1] Wang S, Zhang Z, Xia L, et al. Systematic evaluation of a tissue-engineered bone for maxillary sinus augmentation in large animal canine model [J]. Bone, 2010, 46(1): 91-100.
[2] Convertino VA, Polet JL, Engelke KA, et al. Evidence for increased beta-adrenoreceptor responsiveness induced by 14 days of simulated microgravity in humans [J]. Am J Physiol, 1997, 273(1 Pt 2): R93-99.
[3] Bobka CA, Stewart LA, Engelken GJ, et al. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro measures of beryllium sensitization [J]. J Occup Environ Med, 1997, 39(6): 540-547.
[4] Liu N, Sun F, Xu C, et al. A comparative study of dog models for osteotome sinus floor elevation and dental implants in posterior maxilla subjacent to the maxillary sinus [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2013, 115(3): e15-20.
[5] Estaca E, Cabezas J, Usón J, et al. Maxillary sinus-floor elevation: an animal model[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res,2008,19(10): 1044-1048.
[6] Zeng D, Xia L, Zhang W, et al. Maxillary sinus floor elevation using a tissue-engineered bone with calcium-magnesium phosphate cement and bone marrow stromal cells in rabbits [J]. Tissue Eng Part A, 2012, 18(7-8): 870-881.
[7] Martini L, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Sheep model in orthopedic research: a literature review[J]. Comp Med, 2001,51(4):292-299.
[8] Engelke KA, Williams MM, Dietz NM, et al. Does sympathetic activation blunt nitric oxide-mediated hyperemia in the human forearm? [J]. Clin Auton Res, 1997, 7(2): 85-91.
[9] Zhang W, Wang X, Wang S, et al. The use of injectable sonication-induced silk hydrogel for VEGF(165) and BMP-2 delivery for elevation of the maxillary sinus floor [J]. Biomaterials, 2011, 32(35): 9415-9424.
[10] Stelzle F, Benner KU. An animal model for sinus floor elevation with great elevation heights. Macroscopic, microscopic, radiological and micro-CT analysis: ex vivo [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010, 21(12): 1370-1378.
[11] Lee SH. Biological significance of cytoplasmic estrogen receptors[J]. Pathologica, 1987, 79(1059-1060): 73-77.
[12] Lee SH, Choi BH, Li J, et al. Comparison of corticocancellous block and particulate bone grafts in maxillary sinus floor augmentation for bone healing around dental implants[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod,2007,104(3):324-328.
[13] Xia L, Xu Y, Wei J, et al. Maxillary sinus floor elevation using a tissue-engineered bone with rhBMP-2-loaded porous calcium phosphate cement scaffold and bone marrow stromal cells in rabbits [J]. Cells Tissues Organs, 2011, 194(6): 481-493.
[14] Zou D, Guo L, Lu J, et al. Engineering of bone using porous calcium phosphate cement and bone marrow stromal cells for maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in goats[J]. Tissue Eng Part A,2012,18(13-14):1464-1478.
[15] Mazor Z, Kfir E, Lorean A, et al. Flapless approach to maxillary sinus augmentation using minimally invasive antral membrane balloon elevation [J]. Implant Dent, 2011, 20(6): 434-438.
[16] Yang C, Cai XY, Chen MJ, et al. New arthroscopic disc repositioning and suturing technique for treating an anteriorly displaced disc of the temporomandibular joint: part I technique introduction [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 41(9): 1058-1063.
[17] Nahlieli O, Moshonov J, Zagury A, et al. Endoscopic approach to dental implantology [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011, 69(1): 186-191.
[18] Engelke W, Deckwer I. Endoscopically controlled sinus floor augmentation. A preliminary report [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1997, 8(6): 527-531.
[19] Kinl HR, Choi BH, Xuan F, et al. The use of autologous venous blood for maxillary sinus floor augmentation in conjunction with sinus menlbrane elevation：an experimental study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010, 21(3): 346-349.
[20] Murphy SM, Lawrence JA, Schmiedt CW, et al. Image-guided transnasal cryoablation of a recurrent nasal adenocarcinoma in a dog [J]. J Small Anim Praet, 2011, 52(6): 329-333.
[21] Tyszko C, Bright JM, Swist SL. Recurrent supraventricular arrhythmias in a dog with atrial myocarditis and gastritis [J]. J Small Anita Pract, 2007, 48(6): 335-338.
[22] Müller C, Distl O. Association study of candidate genes for primary cataracts and fine-mapping of a candidate region on dog chromosome 1 in Entlebucher mountain dogs [J]. Mol Vis, 2008, 14: 883-888.
[23] Wetzel AC, Stich H, Caffesse RG. Bone apposition onto oral implants in the sinus area filled with different grafting materials. A histological study in beagle dogs [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1995, 6(3): 155-163.
[24] Pfleiderer AG. How acceptable is outpatient proof puncture of the maxillary sinuses? (The patient′s viewpoint) [J]. J Laryngol Otol, 1987, 101(10): 1029-1034.