Differences in the Structure and Osteogenesis Capacity of the Periosteum From Different Parts of Minipig Mandibles

Purpose To compare the structural and cellular differences of the periosteum from different parts of the mandible in minipigs by use of histologic and immunohistochemical methods to confirm the areas in which periosteal osteogenesis in situ can be used to treat mandible defects. Materials and Methods Three minipigs were killed, and the left mandible of each was retrieved with the periosteum remaining and then fixed, decalcified, and embedded. The specimens were cut from the buccal and lingual sides of the ramus, angle, and body of the mandible and the mentum. Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin and antibodies for Stro-1 (stem cell marker) and vWF (endothelial cell marker). For each periosteal area, the thickness and number of positive cells for each antibody were measured and analyzed. Results The mentum and mandibular angle periostea were thicker than those of the body and ramus. In addition, there were more blood vessels in the periostea of the mentum and mandibular body than the angle and ramus. There were more Stro-1–positive cells in the ramus periosteum than the mentum, body, and angle of the mandibles. Conclusions The structure and cell populations of the periosteum appear to be site specific. Therefore we suggest periosteal osteogenesis in situ to treat mentum and mandibular body defects. The periosteum should be preserved as much as possible to guarantee a good healing process. To compare the structural and cellular differences of the periosteum from different parts of the mandible in minipigs by use of histologic and immunohistochemical methods to confirm the areas in which periosteal osteogenesis in situ can be used to treat mandible defects. Three minipigs were killed, and the left mandible of each was retrieved with the periosteum remaining and then fixed, decalcified, and embedded. The specimens were cut from the buccal and lingual sides of the ramus, angle, and body of the mandible and the mentum. Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin and antibodies for Stro-1 (stem cell marker) and vWF (endothelial cell marker). For each periosteal area, the thickness and number of positive cells for each antibody were measured and analyzed. The mentum and mandibular angle periostea were thicker than those of the body and ramus. In addition, there were more blood vessels in the periostea of the mentum and mandibular body than the angle and ramus. There were more Stro-1–positive cells in the ramus periosteum than the mentum, body, and angle of the mandibles. The structure and cell populations of the periosteum appear to be site specific. Therefore we suggest periosteal osteogenesis in situ to treat mentum and mandibular body defects. The periosteum should be preserved as much as possible to guarantee a good healing process.