4.5 Article

Mixture of hyaluronic acid, chondroitin 6 sulphate and dermatan sulphate used to completely regenerate bone in rat critical size defect model

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 40, Issue 8, Pages 783-787

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.02.011

Keywords

Hyaluronic acid; Critical size defect; Dermatan sulphate bone healing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Skeletal bone losses are mainly filled with autologous graft or artificial materials. Osteoblasts are essential to maintain bone homeostasis and bone repair through a matrix synthesis. We have previously demonstrated that adherence and regenerative matrix composition are fundamental to bone healing, even in critical situations. In this work the critical size defect technique was used to evaluate the systemic activity on bone regeneration of a novel mixture of extracellular polysaccharides. A 5 mm diameter hole was made in each parietal bone of male Wistar rats. The right parietal bone hole was filled with a mixture of hyaluronic acid, chondroitin 6 sulphate, and dermatan sulphate mixed with 2.5% NaCl solution, while the left hole was left free of material and untreated and considered as control. Twenty-one clays after surgery, the holes and surrounding tissues were examined visually, using X-rays, and by histological staining. Using the matrix substitute, bone healing was almost complete after 21 clays in the treated hole and always complete in the control side due to some systemic effect. Neovascularization was also observed along with organized trabecular bone on both sides. No abnormal bone growth or connective tissue abnormalities were noted. At the end of the experiment, 95.1% (+/- 3.2) bone healing (n = 20) was observed on the treated side: conversely, healing bone and histological structure were better on the control side. (C) 2012 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available