4.1 Article

Fresh cortical autograft versus fresh cortical allograft effects on experimental bone healing in rabbits: radiological, Histopathological and Biomechanical evaluation

Journal

CELL AND TISSUE BANKING
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 19-26

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10561-008-9105-0

Keywords

Cortical; Autograft; Allograft; Bone healing; Rabbit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bone grafting is used to enhance healing in osteotomies, arthrodesis, and multifragmentary fractures and to replace bony loss resulting from neoplasia or cysts. They are source of osteoprogenitor cells and induce bone formation and provide mechanical support for vascular and bone ingrowth. Autografts are used commonly but quantity of harvested bone is limit. This study was designed to evaluate fresh cortical autograft and allograft effects on bone healing process. Twenty male White New Zealand rabbits were used in this study. In autograft group the defect was filled by fresh autogenous cortical graft, in allograft group the defect was filled by a segment of fresh allogenous cortical bone which was harvested at the time of surgery during the creation of radius bone defect. Then all surface soft tissue, such as muscle attachments, were removed from the harvested bone and changed between rabbits as a fresh allogenous cortical bone graft and was fixed by cercelage wire. Radiological, histopathological and biomechanical evaluations were performed blindly and results scored and analyzed statistically. Statistical tests did not support significant differences between two groups at the 14th and 56th postoperative day radiographically (P > 0.05). There was a significant difference radiologically for the 28th and the 42nd postoperative (P < 0.05). Autograft was superior to allograft at the 28th and 42nd postoperative day in radiological evaluation (P < 0.03). Histopathological and biomechanical evaluation revealed no significant differences between two groups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available