Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026

An Efficient and Reproducible Protocol for Distraction Osteogenesis in a Rat Model Leading to a Functional Regenerated Femur
Published on: October 23, 2017
Bone loss after ridge expansion with or without reflection of the periosteum
Andres Stricker1, Jonathan Fleiner, Stefan Stübinger
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; Center of Implantology, Periodontology and 3D Head- and Neck Diagnostics, Konstanz, Germany.
Objective:
To evaluate the role of the periosteum in preserving the buccal bone after ridge splitting and expansion with simultaneous implant placement.
Material And Methods:
In 12 miniature pigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were removed together with the interdental bone septa and the buccal bone. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion of the buccal plate was performed with simultaneous placement of two titanium implants per quadrant. Access by a mucosal flap (MF) was prepared on test sides, while a mucoperiosteal flap (MPF) with complete denudation of the buccal bone was increased on control sides. After healing periods of six and 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed for histologic and histometric evaluation.
Results:
In the MF group, all 16 implants were osseointegrated, while in the MPF group, four of 16 implants were lost. Noticeable differences of bone levels on the implant surface and of the bone crest (BC) were found between the MF and the MPF group. Buccally after 6 weeks, the median distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and the coronal-most bone on the implant (cBIC) was for the MF group -1.42 ± 0.42 mm and for the MPF group -4.80 ± 2.72 mm (P = 0.15). The median distance between the IS and the buccal BC was -1.24 ± 0.51 mm and -2.78 ± 1.98 mm (P = 0.12) for the MF and MPF group, respectively. After 12 weeks, median IS-cBIC was -2.12 ± 0.84 mm for MF and -7.19 mm for MPF, while IS-BC was -2.08 ± 0.79 mm for MF and -5.96 mm for MPF. After 6 weeks, the median buccal bone thickness for MF and MPF was 0.01 and 0 mm (P < 0.001) at IS, 1.48 ± 0.97 mm and 0 ± 0.77 mm (P = 0.07) at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.12 ± 1.19 mm and 1.72 ± 01.50 mm (P = 0.86) at 4 mm apical to IS, respectively. After 12 weeks, buccal bone thickness in the MF group was 0 mm at IS, 0.21 mm at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.56 mm at 4 mm apical to IS, whereas complete loss of buccal bone was measured from IS to 4 mm apical to IS for the MPF group.
Conclusions:
In this ridge expansion model in miniature pigs, buccal bone volume was significantly better preserved when the periosteum remained attached to the bone.
Related Concept Videos
Bone Remodeling
Fractures: Bone Repair
Minor fractures with no bone displacement are treated by immobilizing the fractured bone using a cast or splint. However, in the case of fractures with displaced bones, the broken bones are repositioned before immobilization to ensure successful healing without deformation and loss of function. The realignment of fractured bone ends is performed through a process called reduction. If the...
Osteoclasts in Bone Remodeling
Bone Markings
Articulating Projections
Articulating projections are found where two bones meet to form a joint. These structures are usually found at the ends of bones. The largest articulation is a rounded projection called the head, supported by a narrow neck at the ends of...
Bone Disorders
Bone deposition is also affected by the levels of sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone that promote osteoblast activity and bone matrix synthesis. When the level of these hormones decreases due to aging, it causes a reduction in bone deposition. As a result, bone resorption by osteoclasts...
Bone Formation by Intramembranous Ossification
The process begins when mesenchymal cells in the embryonic skeleton gather together and differentiate into osteogenic cells, which then develop into ...

