4.7 Article

Acceleration of Bone Fracture Healing through the Use of Bovine Hydroxyapatite or Calcium Lactate Oral and Implant Bovine Hydroxyapatite-Gelatin on Bone Defect Animal Model

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym14224812

关键词

defect; bone remodeling; bovine hydroxyapatite; calcium lactate; BHA-GEL pellet

资金

  1. Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia via Pendanaan Riset Inovatif Produktif (RISPRO) [KEP-51/LPDP/2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that oral BHA supplementation combined with BHA-GEL pellet implants can accelerate the healing of bone defects.
Bone grafts a commonly used therapeutic technique for the reconstruction and facilitation of bone regeneration due to fractures. BHA-GEL (bovine hydroxyapatite-gelatin) pellet implants have been shown to be able accelerate the process of bone repair by looking at the percentage of new bone, and the contact between the composite and bone. Based on these results, a study was conducted by placing BHA-GEL (9:1) pellet implants in rabbit femoral bone defects, accompanied by 500 mg oral supplement of BHA or calcium lactate to determine the effectiveness of addition supplements. The research model used was a burr hole defect model with a diameter of 4.2 mm in the cortical part of the rabbit femur. On the 7th, 14th and 28th days after treatment, a total of 48 New Zealand rabbits were divided into four groups, namely defect (control), implant, implant + oral BHA, and implant + oral calcium lactate. Animal tests were terminated and evaluated based on X-ray radiology results, Hematoxylin-Eosin staining, vascular endothelial growth Factor (VEGF), osteocalcin, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP) and calcium levels. From this research can be concluded that Oral BHA supplementation with BHA-GEL pellet implants showed faster healing of bone defects compared to oral calcium lactate with BHA-GEL pellet implants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据