4.6 Article

The effects of boron nitride/hydroxyapatite compounds on bone defects in osteoporotic rats

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR STRUCTURE
Volume 1295, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2023.136683

Keywords

Bone defect; Boron nitride; Hydroxyapatite; Osteoporosis; PLGA; Rat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effects of incorporating different concentrations of boron nitride and/or hydroxyapatite into poly-(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) scaffolds on bone defects in osteoporotic rats. Results showed that bone defects were healed in the groups treated with PLGA scaffolds containing boron nitride and/or hydroxyapatite, with the 2.5% boron nitride + 10% hydroxyapatite group showing the best healing.
This study investigated the effects of poly-(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) scaffolds containing different concentrations of boron nitride (BN) and/or hydroxyapatite (HA) on bone defects in osteoporotic rats. The control group consisted of healthy rats. A standard non-critical size defect was induced in the osteoporotic rat femurs 12 weeks post-ovariectomy. PLGA scaffolds containing different concentrations of BN+HA were then applied to the defect area. In one group, defect was induced but no PLGA was applied. Computed tomography images were obtained and tissue samples were collected in the first, second, and fourth weeks postoperatively. PLGA scaffolds were classified as no BN + HA, only 10% HA, 2.5% BN + 10% HA, 5% BN + 10% HA, 10% BN + 10% HA or only 2.5%, 5% or 10% BN. No healing was determined in the first and second weeks postoperatively. However, in the fourth week healing was observed in the groups treated with PLGA scaffolds containing 10% HA, 2.5% BN + 10% HA, 2.5% BN and 5% BN, and especially in the 2.5% BN + 10% HA group. The findings of this study suggest that BN may represent a novel target for treating osteoporotic bone defects for physicians and engineers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available