4.4 Article

Calcium sulfate-carboxymethylcellulose bone graft binder: Histologic and morphometric evaluation in a critical size defect

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30815

Keywords

bone regeneration; bone graft; calcium sulfate; carboxymethylcellulose; osseous defect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Calcium sulfate (CS) is widely used as a bone graft binder and expander. Recent reports indicate that carboxymethyleellulose (CMC) can improve the clinical properties of CS when used as binder for particulate bone grafts; however, limited information is available on the effects of CMC on bone regeneration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the histologic and morphometric characteristics of bone formation in calvarial defects grafted with a CS-based putty containing 10% CMC in combination with allogeneic demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Bone formation and graft/binder resorption were compared with a surgical grade CS and DBM in paired critical-sized calvarial defects in 25 Wistar rats (350450 g). Six animals each provided paired defects at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days postsurgery for nondecalcified processing and microscopic analysis. Defects grafted with CS or CS-CMC putty as the DBM binder exhibited similar patterns and proportions of bone formation, fibrous tissue/marrow, and residual DBM particles. Comparable mean +/- SD proportions of new bone formation (31.7 +/- 9.5 and 33.7 +/- 12.9), fibrous tissue/marrow (54.2 +/- 8.3 and 53.0 +/- 10.8), residual DBM particles (8.3 +/- 6.8 and 10.1 +/- 6.3), and residual binder material (5.5 +/- 4.6 and 3.7 +/- 3.5) were found at 28 days for defects grafted with CS and CS-CMC putty, respectively. Thus, CMC was found to improve the handling characteristics of CS and, when used in conjunction with DBM, supported comparable levels bone formation and patterns of binder/scaffold resorption as CS and DBM in a calvarial defect model. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available