4.2 Article

Influence of Age on Calvarial Critical Size Defect Dimensions: A Radiographic and Histological Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 2896-2900

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007690

Keywords

Aged rats; animal study; calvarial bone; critical size defect; rodents

Categories

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology [592-2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study confirmed that a 5mm defect is considered a critical size for calvarial bone defects in young adult rats, while a 4mm defect might be considered critical size for the aged rats after 8 weeks.
Calvarial critical-size defect has been used to assess techniques and materials in the bone regeneration field. Previous studies utilized young adult rats with 3 months of age, which might not reflect the geriatric conditions. This study aimed to assess the dimensions of the calvarial critical-size defect in aged rats. Seventy-two rats in a randomized block design were allocated into a control young adult (11-12 weeks), and a test old group (22-24 months). Both groups were divided according to bone defect's size: 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm defects, which were surgically created and followed for 4 and 8 weeks. Radiographic and histologic analyses were performed. Based on the results, additional groups with 4 mm defect size were added following the same protocols. Young groups yielded higher bone volumes, defect closure percentages, and density of newly formed bone. Closure of cranial defects was only observed in 3 mm defects in both age groups after 8 weeks; however, the 4 mm defect group demonstrated bony bridging after 8 weeks in young but not old rats. Results confirmed that 5-mm defect is considered a critical size for calvarial bone defects in young adult rats; however, 4 mm defect might be considered critical size for the aged rats after 8 weeks.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available