AbstractThis study aimed to evaluate the osteogenic capacity of two types of collagenated xenogenic bone grafts (OCS-B Collagen®, NIBEC, Jincheon, Korea and Bio-Oss® Collagen, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in artificial bone defects in beagle dogs. The bilateral mandibular premolars of 13 male beagles were extracted, followed by the creation of standardized bony defects after 4 weeks. The defects were grafted with or without the two bone grafts and covered by a collagen membrane. Dental implants were placed 24 weeks post grafting. Bone regeneration and osseointegration were evaluated using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), as well as histological and histomorphometric analyses, while implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Micro-CT revealed that both grafts significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume (BV), total volume (TV), and BV/TV at 8 and 16 weeks. Twenty-four weeks after implant placement, comparable BMD, BV/TV, and bone-to-implant contact values indicated effective osseointegration. Histological analysis revealed new bone formation and integration between grafts. Histomorphometric analysis demonstrated the preservation of bone height and angle. RFA indicated good implant stability in both groups. The two collagenated xenogenic bone grafts exhibited similar osteogenic potential and osseointegration in an artificial bone defect and implant model. Clinically, both grafting materials may provide comparable outcomes in bone regeneration and implant stability.
IntroductionGuided bone regeneration (GBR) is the most extensively studied and commonly used technique to enhance bone regeneration in peri-implant alveolar defects1. In recent years, deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) has emerged as one of the most frequently used bone graft materials for GBR2. Its osteoconductive properties and resistance to resorption support effective bone healing throughout the healing period3.Recently, DBBM integrated with collagen has gained popularity due to its ease of handling4 and shape maintenance5. Collagen plays a crucial role in bone regeneration by serving as an extracellular matrix component within bone tissue. Collagen gradually decomposes over time, facilitating new bone formation, maintaining space6, and accelerating the bone regeneration process. In clinical applications, the product can be used either in its dry state or moistened with blood or saline solution, enabling it to be molded into various shapes to meet procedural requirements. Bio-Oss® Collagen (Bio-Oss.C, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) is composed of 90% Bio-Oss® granules combined with 10% porcine collagen. Bio-Oss®, widely used in dental regeneration and supported by strong scientific validation7,8, is derived from bovine cancellous bone and processed through a thermal treatment method. Porcine collagen, which constitutes the remaining 10%, is non-crosslinked, enhancing its biocompatibility and integration into the tissue. Similarly, OCS-B Collagen® (OCS-B.C, NIBEC, Jincheon, Korea) is a composite material consisting of purified spongy bovine bone mineral granules (OCS-B®) combined with 10% porcine collagen, presented in block form. The porcine collagen used in OCS-B.C undergoes gelation, a form of crosslinking, which may influence its mechanical properties and degradation profile. Fig. 1Study flow chart and clinical photographs of the surgical procedures. (A) Study flow chart. (B) Clinical photographs of surgical procedure for defect formation and bone grafting. (a) Bilateral mandibular premolars (P2, P3, and P4) were extracted 4 weeks preoperatively. (b) Two defects were created. (c) Bone defects measuring 10 (width) × 3 (length) × 4 mm (height). (d) Bone defects grafted with bone graft material. (e) Collagen membrane placed over the grafted area. (f) Surgical site was sutured. (C) Clinical photographs of surgical procedure for implant placement. (a) Elevated flap. (b) Implants were placed at the center of the grafted site. (c) Surgical site suturing.Full size imageSeveral clinical studies have been conducted on Bio-Oss.C9,10,11,12. Similarly, OCS-B.C has demonstrated a favorable clinical outcome in alveolar ridge preservation in clinical trials13, although further basic and clinical evidence is necessary for clinical application. Furthermore, a direct comparative analysis of their osteogenic potential using a standardized in vivo model has been lacking in the literature. Given the widespread clinical use of these materials, a head-to-head comparison offers valuable insights into their relative efficacy, structural integration, and long-term performance in bone regeneration and osseointegration.Therefore, this in vivo study aimed to evaluate and compare the osteogenic capacity of two commercially available collagenated xenogenic bone grafts, OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C, in artificial bone defects of beagle dogs.ResultsCell adhesion and morphology on bone graftsScanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis confirmed that osteoblasts adhered to both OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C surfaces, displaying a well-spread morphology with the graft material (Supplementary Figure S1).Early osteogenic differentiation assessed by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activityThe ALP activity assay revealed that osteoblasts cultured with OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C exhibited significantly higher ALP activity than the non-treatment (NT) group (p < 0.05) after 3 days of incubation. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two graft groups (Supplementary Figure S2).Micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) analysis of bone regenerationMicro-CT revealed progressive healing in all groups. Regarding bone mineral density (BMD), a significant difference was observed only at 8 weeks between the OCS-B.C and NT groups (p < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between the Bio-Oss.C and NT groups or between the OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C groups. At 16 weeks, there were no significant differences among the groups (Fig. 2B). However, in the bone volume (BV) and BV/total volume (TV) analyses, both the OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C groups exhibited significantly higher values compared to the NT group at both 8 and 16 weeks (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2C, E). These differences were visually apparent in the volume of interest (VOI)-defined radiographs during the healing period. At 48 weeks, which was the same as 24 weeks after implant placement, the BMD and BV/TV values were highly sustained in two graft groups (Fig. 3B, C). The percentage of new bone (NB) in contact with the implant surface was similar in two graft groups, indicating comparable osseointegration performance (Fig. 3E).Fig. 2Micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis of bone regeneration in bone defect sites in the 8- and 16-week groups. (A) Micro-CT three-dimensional reconstructed images of the defect site and volume of interest (VOI). The VOI was defined as a 10 mm (width) × 4 mm (length) × 3 mm (height) volume within the bone defect. (B) Comparison of bone mineral density between groups. (C) Comparison of bone volume (BV) between groups. (D) Comparison of total volume (TV) between groups. (E) Comparison of BV/TV between groups.Full size imageFig. 3Micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis in the 24-week group. (A) Micro-CT three-dimensional reconstructed images of the defect site and volume of interest (VOI). The VOI was defined as a 3 × 3 × 3 mm cube surrounding the implant within the bone defect. (B) Comparison of bone mineral density between groups. (C) Comparison of bone volume/total volume between groups. (D) Bone-to-implant contact and region of interest (ROI). The ROI was defined as a 200 μm zone extending from the implant surface. (E) Osseointegration (%): percentage of new bone contact with the implant surface, indicating comparable osseointegration in both graft groups.Full size imageHistologic analysis of bone regenerationAt 8 weeks, the graft materials remained stable within the defect areas, and early bone formation was observed in both groups (Fig. 4A). At 16 weeks, significant NB formation and almost complete integration of the graft materials were evident, with both bone grafts largely resorbed and replaced by NB (Fig. 4B). Histologically, both OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C demonstrated similar patterns of NB formation and integration, indicating a comparable performance. At both 8 and 16 weeks, the BV was significantly higher in the OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C groups than in the NT group (p < 0.05) (Fig. 4C). Specifically, at 8 weeks, the BV in both graft groups was significantly greater than that in the NT group (p < 0.05). Although a slight decrease in BV was noted between weeks 8 and 16 in the Bio-Oss.C group, both grafts maintained significantly higher BVs than those in the NT group, with no significant differences between the two graft materials (Fig. 4C). Both grafting groups maintained buccal and lingual wall heights well at 8 and 16 weeks compared with the NT group (p < 0.001, Fig. 5B, C). In addition, the change in the angle was small in both grafting groups (p < 0.05, Fig. 5D, E).Fig. 4Histologic analysis (multiple staining) of bone regeneration within defect sites at 8 and 16 weeks. (A) Cross-section showing new bone (NB) formation in grafted areas after 8 weeks. (B) Cross-section showing NB formation in grafted areas after 16 weeks. (C) Comparison of bone volume in defect sites across all experimental groups.Full size imageFig. 5Histological analysis of the height and angle of the buccal and lingual walls. (A) Histologic analysis of the height and angle of the buccal and lingual walls. (B) Comparison of buccal wall height in all experimental groups at 8 and 16 weeks. (C) Comparison of lingual wall height in all experimental groups at 8 and 16 weeks. (D) Comparison of buccal wall angle in all experimental groups at 8 and 16 weeks. (E) Comparison of lingual wall angle in all experimental groups at 8 and 16 weeks.Full size imageNB formation, bone-to-implant contact (BIC), and implant stability at the grafted areaBone formation 24 weeks after bone grafting was evaluated at the time of implant placement. The graft materials were well integrated with the NB, showing complete bone-graft contact without evidence of inflammatory infiltration (Fig. 6A). NB showed no significant differences between groups in terms of bone formation patterns. The BIC values revealed similar levels of osseointegration between the OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C groups (Fig. 6B), and the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were similar in both graft groups, showing successful osseointegration (Fig. 6C).Fig. 6Evaluation of new bone (NB) formation, bone-to-implant contact ratio (BIC), and implant stability at 24 weeks post-implantation. (A) Histologic observation using hematoxylin and eosin staining of NB formation. (B) BIC as measured in histologic sample. (C) Implant stability quotient value from resonance frequency analysis.Full size imageDiscussionIn this study, we evaluated and compared two collagenated xenografts, OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C, for their effectiveness in bone regeneration and osseointegration using a Beagle dental implant model. Both materials exhibited similar levels of NB formation and defect repair over time. In addition, following implant placement at the grafted site, both OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C effectively promoted osseointegration around the dental implants.The clinical effectiveness of Bio-Oss.C has been demonstrated in several studies, with pronounced osteoconductive11,14 and space-forming properties10. The inclusion of porcine collagen in xenografts helps maintain their structure within the defect site, which supports NB formation15. This was consistent with our histological data, in which both materials showed seamless integration with NB (Figs. 4, 5 and 6) This may account for the similar performance of the two materials in enhancing bone regeneration.Collagen not only provides a stable structure for bone formation but also enhances the long-term integration of the graft with the surrounding bone16. Collagen mimics the natural extracellular matrix, supporting key cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation processes during bone regeneration17. Recent research has highlighted the importance of Type I collagen in bone tissue engineering, emphasizing its dual function as a scaffold and structural component. Although collagen has some limitations, such as rapid degradation, its combination with materials, such as hydroxyapatite, improves mechanical stability and osteoconductivity18. To evaluate these aspects, a comparison of bone grafts with and without collagen is necessary and is currently ongoing.In the micro-CT analysis, there were no significant differences in BMD across the NT, OCS-B.C, and Bio-Oss.C groups (Fig. 2). This may be because BMD measures the density of both native and newly formed bone. Since the samples were analyzed 8 weeks postoperatively, significant bone formation was expected to have already occurred in all groups, minimizing the variation in BMD between them (Fig. 2B). BMD reflects the mineral content rather than the volume or quality of the newly formed bone, which may explain the lack of significant differences between the grafted and non-grafted groups. In contrast, the BV analysis revealed notable differences between the groups. The BV measured using micro-CT included both the bone graft material and surrounding newly formed bone. Both the OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C groups demonstrated significantly higher BV than that in the NT group, indicating that the grafted bone was well retained within the defect (Fig. 2C). The higher BV in the grafted groups suggests that the graft materials play a key role in maintaining the defect structure and promoting NB formation. Increased BV in the grafted groups highlights the importance of using bone grafts to enhance defect repair and prevent significant bone loss. The similar performance of OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C in maintaining BV further supported the non-inferiority of OCS-B.C. This finding suggests that OCS-B.C can be considered a viable alternative to Bio-Oss.C in terms of supporting bone regeneration and structural integrity within the defect site. In the group that received implants at 24 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in BMD, BV/TV, or osseointegration between the test groups, indicating that both materials exhibited similar performance in terms of bone density around the implant site (Fig. 3A–C). For the osseointegration analysis, the degree of osseointegration was similar in both groups, confirming that both materials performed in a similar manner (Fig. 3D, E). At 16 and 24 weeks, both the grafted bone particles and newly formed bone exhibited near-complete integration, as evidenced by histological analysis (Figs. 4B, 6A). This seamless integration underscores the long-term regenerative potential of both implant materials, indicating their ability to support sustained bone regeneration. Although the OCS-B.C group demonstrated a slightly higher total BV than that in the Bio-Oss.C group at 16 weeks (Fig. 4C), the difference was minimal, suggesting that the two materials performed similarly in promoting bone regeneration over time. The defect wall structure was well maintained in both experimental groups compared to that in the NT group (Fig. 5), indicating that OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C contributed to the effective maintenance of wall height and angle through bone regeneration. Based on bone regeneration 24 weeks after implantation, both groups exhibited similar BIC and ISQ values with no significant differences, demonstrating that both grafting materials facilitated effective osseointegration.Our study demonstrated that, while no significant difference was observed in the osteogenic potential between OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C, this finding has important clinical implications. Clinicians select bone graft materials based on multiple factors, including handling properties, cost-effectiveness, and biological performance, rather than osteogenic potential alone. By demonstrating that OCS-B.C achieves comparable outcomes to Bio-Oss.C, our study suggests that OCS-B.C can serve as a viable alternative, expanding clinicians’ options and potentially reducing reliance on a single commercially dominant product. Moreover, the present study provides a comprehensive evaluation through detailed histological, micro-CT, and biomechanical analyses, further substantiating the efficacy of collagenated xenografts in bone regeneration. Although a significant difference between materials could have enhanced the impact of our findings, demonstrating non-inferiority itself offers clinically meaningful insights, aiding informed decision-making in graft selection and guiding future research directions.However, this study had several limitations. One of the primary limitations of our study is its reliance on an animal model, which, despite its advantages in simulating clinical conditions, may not fully replicate the complex biological environment of human bone healing. Species-specific differences in bone metabolism and healing capacity may limit the generalizability of our findings to human applications. Future clinical studies will be essential to validate our results in human patients. Second, while we employed standardized surgical procedures and randomized group allocation to minimize experimental bias, variations in biological responses among individual animals could still introduce confounding factors. Moreover, the sample size, although determined based on ethical considerations and statistical power calculations, may limit the ability to detect subtle differences between the two materials. Further investigations with larger sample sizes and additional assessment time points could provide more robust conclusions. Additionally, our study focused primarily on short- to mid-term bone regeneration and osseointegration outcomes. Long-term follow-up studies are necessary to assess the stability of newly formed bone and potential differences in graft resorption rates over extended periods. Furthermore, evaluating additional parameters, such as inflammatory responses and mechanical properties of the regenerated bone, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the biological performance of these materials. Finally, while our findings indicate comparable osteogenic potential between OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C, further studies incorporating different clinical scenarios, such as compromised healing conditions, may provide more clinically relevant insights. Future research should also explore the potential synergistic effects of combining these materials with bioactive agents to enhance their regenerative capacity.These preclinical results suggest that OCS-B.C has an osteogenic potential similar to that of Bio-Oss.C, indicating that OCS-B.C can be used effectively for GBR and subsequent implant placement. In the clinical application, the OCS-B.C would be expected to achieve clinical outcomes similar to Bio-Oss.C.Materials and methodsSEM analysisTo evaluate cell adhesion to the bone graft materials, osteoblasts were seeded onto OCS-B.C and Bio-Oss.C and incubated for 24 h. The samples were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) for 30 min at room temperature, followed by dehydration through a graded ethanol. After dehydration, the samples were freeze-dried and observed using a scanning electron microscope (Apreo S, Thermo Fisher, USA). Representative images are presented in Supplementary Figure S1.ALP activity assayTo assess early osteogenic differentiation, osteoblasts were cultured in StemPro™ Osteogenesis Differentiation Medium (A1007201, Gibco, USA) with OCS-B.C or Bio-Oss.C. Cells were incubated for 3 days, and ALP activity was measured using the Alkaline Phosphatase Activity Kit (EEA002, Thermo Fisher, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Absorbance was recorded at 405 nm, and values were normalized to total protein content. The results are shown in Supplementary Figure S2.AnimalsThe study included 13 male beagle dogs with complete dentition and healthy gums, weighing 10–15 kg and aged 7–9 months. The Beagle dogs were obtained from Raonbio (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) and were housed in separate cages and monitored daily by a veterinarian. All experiments in this study were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Seoul National University, Korea (Approval No. SNU-220914-6). All procedures in this study adhered to the modified Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines.MaterialsThe collagenated xenogenic bone grafts used were OCS-B.C (NIBEC, Jincheon, Korea) and Bio-Oss.C (Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland). The artificial bone defects were covered with Bio-Gide® (Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland), and TS III SA Implants (ø 3.0 × 8.5 mm; OSSTEM IMPLANT, Korea) were used in this study.Study designIn accordance with ethical considerations and the 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) in animal research, we optimized the number of animals while ensuring statistical validity. A previous study indicated that six animals per group would be sufficient to detect biologically meaningful differences while minimizing unnecessary animal use19. Thirteen beagle dogs were divided into two or three groups based on the study duration (Fig. 1A):
Durations 1 and 2: 8 and 16 weeks (five dogs with six samples in each group).
(1)
NT group
(2)
OCS-B.C group
(3)
Bio-Oss.C group
Duration 3: 24 weeks (three dogs with six samples in each group).
(4)
OCS-B.C group
(5)
Bio-Oss.C group
Random group allocation was performed to minimize bias. The dogs were sacrificed at 8 and 16 weeks after bone grafting for analysis of study Duration 1. In addition, the dogs were sacrificed at 24 weeks for analysis of study Duration 3. The bone tissue at the grafting site was sampled using a trephine bur, and the implants were placed on that site. The dogs were sacrificed 24 weeks after implant placement.Surgical procedureGeneral anesthesia was administered via intravenous injection of Zoletil 50 (10 mg/kg, tiletamine hydrochloride/zolazepam hydrochloride; Virbac, France) and Rompun (xylazine hydrochloride; Bayer, Elanco Korea, South Korea) prior to each surgical procedure. Bilateral mandibular premolars (P2, P3, and P4) were extracted 4 weeks preoperatively. During each procedure, two box-shaped bone defects were created in the post-extraction areas of the mandible by using a high-speed handpiece. The defects were standardized to a width of 10 mm, length of 3 mm, and height of 4 mm. Four bone defects were planned per dog, with one treatment. After defect creation, bone grafts were applied to the respective groups, and the defect area was covered with a membrane. The surgical sites were then sutured (Fig. 1B). Antibiotic medication was administered for 5 days, and the sutures were removed after 2 weeks. The dogs were euthanized at 8 and 16 weeks postoperatively using a combination of Zoletil 50 (2.5 mL, 125 mg, based on a concentration of 50 mg/mL) and Rompun (2.5 mL, 23.32 mg, based on a concentration of 23.32 mg/mL). After administering these agents, inhalation anesthesia was induced with isoflurane (Piramal Healthcare, India), followed by intravenous injection of potassium chloride to complete the euthanasia process. The mandibles were block-resected and fixed in a 4% paraformaldehyde solution for 14 days.Dental implants (four per dog) were placed at the surgical sites following a 24-week healing period after bone grafting (24-week group, Fig. 1C). Twenty-four weeks after implant placement, the dogs were euthanized for analysis.Micro-CT analysisMicro-CT (SkyScan-1273 Micro-CT) was used to assess the BMD, BV, TV, and BV/TV at the defect site using CTAn software (Bruker, Belgium). For the 8- and 16-week groups, micro-CT images were obtained by sectioning through the center of the bone defect in the beagle mandible, providing coronal cross-sectional views for analysis. For the 24-week group, micro-CT images were obtained by sectioning through the center of the implanted fixture, allowing for a detailed assessment of peri-implant bone regeneration. To provide further clarification, in the 8- and 16-week groups, the VOI was defined as a 10 mm (width) × 4 mm (length) × 3 mm (height) volume at the bone defect site (Fig. 2A). For the 24-week group, two separate VOIs were set on both sides of the implant, each measuring 3 mm (width) × 3 mm (length) × 3 mm (height) at the defect site (Fig. 3A). BMD, BV/TV, and BIC were measured in the VOI. For the osseointegration analysis, the ROI was defined as a 200 μm area extending from the implant surface (Fig. 3D).Histologic analysisAll samples were embedded in Technovit 7200 VLC resin (Kulzer GmbH, Germany), following the manufacturer’s protocol. The samples were dehydrated using graded ethanol and then infiltrated with resin under vacuum to ensure full penetration of the implant and surrounding tissues. The resin blocks were then polymerized under ultraviolet light. After polymerization, the resin blocks were sectioned using an Exakt cutting system (Exakt Apparatebau GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) equipped with a diamond blade. Sections were cut to a thickness of approximately 100–300 μm. The sections were subsequently ground and polished using the Exakt grinding system to a final thickness of 80 μm. All the samples were stained using multiple staining solutions (Polyscience, Warrington, USA). A rectangular ROI (3 × 4 mm) reflecting the cross-section of the bone defect was used for histological analysis, and BV was measured in the ROI portion (Fig. 4A, B). The heights and angles of the buccal and lingual walls were measured (Fig. 5A–E). In the 24-week implant placement group, bone samples were collected using a trephine bur prior to implant placement, and NB formation in the bone core was evaluated by hematoxylin and eosin staining (Fig. 6A). Twenty-four weeks after implantation, the BIC was measured in the same ROI using micro-CT analysis.Resonance frequency analysisResonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed to evaluate implant stability using an Osstell ISQ device (Osstell AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), which measures the resonance frequency of the implant to provide an ISQ value. SmartPeg was attached to the implant, and the resonance frequency was measured in both the buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. The measured values were then averaged to calculate the final ISQ.Statistical analysisAll results are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For normally distributed data, a two-way analysis of variance was used for comparisons among three groups, and the Student’s t-test was used for comparisons between two groups. For non-normally distributed data, the Mann − Whitney U test was used for comparisons between two groups (Supplementary Tables S1-S30). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
Data availability
All data generated by this study are included in this manuscript.
ReferencesBenic, G. I. & Hammerle, C. H. Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000(66), 13–40 (2014).MATH
Google Scholar
Jensen, S. S. & Terheyden, H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: Clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(Suppl), 218–236 (2009).PubMed
Google Scholar
Rosen, V. B., Hobbs, L. W. & Spector, M. The ultrastructure of anorganic bovine bone and selected synthetic hyroxyapatites used as bone graft substitute materials. Biomaterials 23, 921–928 (2002).PubMed
Google Scholar
Wong, R. W. & Rabie, A. B. Effect of bio-oss collagen and collagen matrix on bone formation. Open Biomed. Eng. J. 4, 71–76 (2010).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Alayan, J., Vaquette, C., Farah, C. & Ivanovski, S. A histomorphometric assessment of collagen-stabilized anorganic bovine bone mineral in maxillary sinus augmentation - A prospective clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 27, 850–858 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Pickert, F. N., Spalthoff, S., Gellrich, N. C. & Blaya Tarraga, J. A. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of dimensional hard tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation techniques of different bone substitutes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 52, 3–27 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Araujo, M. G., Carmagnola, D., Berglundh, T., Thilander, B. & Lindhe, J. Orthodontic movement in bone defects augmented with Bio-Oss. An experimental study in dogs. J. Clin. Periodontol 28, 73–80 (2001).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kang J, Shibasaki M, Terauchi M, Oshibe N, Hyodo K, Marukawa E. Comparative analysis of the in vivo kinetic properties of various bone substitutes filled into a peri-implant canine defect model. J. Periodontal. Implant. Sci. 54, 96–107 (2024).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cardaropoli, D., Tamagnone, L., Roffredo, A., Gaveglio, L. & Cardaropoli, G. Socket preservation using bovine bone mineral and collagen membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial with histologic analysis. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 32, 421–430 (2012).PubMed
Google Scholar
Jung, R. E. et al. Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 40, 90–98 (2013).PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Araujo, M. G., Linder, E. & Lindhe, J. Bio-Oss collagen in the buccal gap at immediate implants: A 6-month study in the dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 22, 1–8 (2011).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mordenfeld, A., Hallman, M., Johansson, C. B. & Albrektsson, T. Histological and histomorphometrical analyses of biopsies harvested 11 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with deproteinized bovine and autogenous bone. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 21, 961–970 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kim, H. et al. Alveolar ridge preservation using a collagenated xenograft: A randomized clinical trial. Int. Den. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2024.07.015 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Rohner, D., Hailemariam, S. & Hammer, B. L. Fort I osteotomies using Bio-Oss(R) collagen to promote bony union: a prospective clinical split-mouth study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 42, 585–591 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Falacho, R. I. et al. Collagenated porcine heterologous bone grafts: Histomorphometric evaluation of bone formation using different physical forms in a rabbit cancellous bone model. Molecules 26(5), 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26051339 (2021).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Parenteau-Bareil, R., Gauvin, R. & Berthod, F. Collagen-based biomaterials for tissue engineering applications. Materials 3, 1863–1887 (2010).ADS
CAS
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Somaiah, C. et al. Collagen promotes higher adhesion, survival and proliferation of mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS One 10, e0145068 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Fan, L. et al. The use of collagen-based materials in bone tissue engineering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24(4), 3744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043744 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Sato, R. et al. Influence of the bone graft materials used for guided bone regeneration on subsequent peri-implant inflammation: An experimental ligature-induced peri-implantitis model in Beagle dogs. Int. J. Implant Dent. 8, 3 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Download referencesFundingThis research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (RS-2023-00266856), and by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1A6A1A03039462). This work was supported by Creative-Pioneering Researchers Program through Seoul National University.Author informationAuthor notesDong Woo Lee and Hee-seung Han contributed equally as first authors.Authors and AffiliationsCentral Research Institute, Nano Intelligent Biomedical Engineering Corporation (NIBEC), Seoul, KoreaDong Woo Lee, Yu-bin Kim, Sanghui Seok, Jue Yeon Lee, Yoon Jeong Park & Chong Pyung ChungDepartment of Dental Regenerative Biotechnology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, KoreaDong Woo Lee & Yoon Jeong ParkDepartment of Periodontology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, KoreaHee-seung HanDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University and Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, KoreaSungtae Kim & Young-Dan ChoSchool of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, KoreaChong Pyung ChungAuthorsDong Woo LeeView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarHee-seung HanView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarYu-bin KimView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarSanghui SeokView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarSungtae KimView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarJue Yeon LeeView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarYoung-Dan ChoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarYoon Jeong ParkView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarChong Pyung ChungView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarContributionsD.W.L. and H.-s.H. contributed to the experimental design, animal experiments, data analysis, and drafting of the original manuscript. Y.-B.K. and S.S. contributed to the animal experiments and subsequent data analysis. S.T.K., J.Y.L., Y.D.C., Y.J.P., and C.P.C. contributed to the conception and design of the study and provided critical revisions to the manuscript and data interpretation.Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Young-Dan Cho, Yoon Jeong Park or Chong Pyung Chung.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare the following competing interests: Some authors (e.g., Yoon Jeong Park, Chong-Pyung Chung, and Jue Yeon Lee) hold patents related to biomaterials, including Patent No. 10-1348335 (issued December 26, 2013, South Korea) and Patent No. 10-2183048 (issued November 19, 2020, South Korea). Other than these disclosures, the authors have no other competing financial or non-financial interests to declare.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Seoul National University, Korea (Approval No.: SNU-220914-6) according to the ARRIVE guidelines for preclinical studies.
Additional informationPublisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary InformationSupplementary Information.Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleLee, D.W., Han, Hs., Kim, Yb. et al. Longitudinal comparative study on osteogenic capacity using two collagenated xenografts in artificial bone defects in beagles.
Sci Rep 15, 10408 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94284-8Download citationReceived: 23 December 2024Accepted: 12 March 2025Published: 26 March 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94284-8Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
KeywordsAnimal experimentationBone regenerationDental implantXenograft