You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 124 No. 12, December 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (2)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Surgery
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Osteopontin and Bone Sialoprotein Distribution at the Bone Graft Recipient Site

Per Alberius, DMD, MD, PhD; Monica Gordh, DMD, PhD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:1382-1386.

Background  The area in close proximity to a bone graft is subject to marked remodeling activity, which may dramatically affect graft survival.

Objective  To specifically analyze the effects at the recipient bed–onlay graft interface.

Design  In 22 adult Lewis rats, bicortical grafts were positioned below the temporal muscle and subperiosteally over the parietal bone. The recipient bone was left intact or ground to remove the external cortical layer, thereby exposing the graft to the osteopotent cells of the bone marrow. The rats were killed after 4 or 20 weeks. The outcome was assessed by routine histologic examination and immunohistochemical labeling for 2 bone matrix proteins, osteopontin and bone sialoprotein, which are involved in bone resorption and formation, respectively.

Results  Placement of the grafts submuscularly or grinding of the outer cortical layer of the host bed increased recipient site resorption. Resorptive activity (labeling) was concentrated to a subzone below the surface of the recipient bone; neither the graft surface nor the interface soft tissues were labeled.

Conclusion  The successive loss of skeletal contour after bone grafting, in many cases, may largely result from recipient site failure rather than graft size reduction.


From the Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospital MAS (Dr Alberius), and the Department of Oral Surgery, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University (Dr Gordh), Malmö, Sweden.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.