4.5 Article

The effect of varying the particle size of beta tricalcium phosphate carrier of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-4 on bone formation in rat calvarial defects

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 77, 期 5, 页码 765-772

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050268

关键词

beta tricalcium phosphate; bone morphogenetic protein; bone regeneration; particle size; porosity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Beta tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) has been developed as one of the carriers of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP). However, it is not known whether the particle size of beta-TCP is related to its resorption rate and the degree of bone formation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of using beta-TCP with different particle sizes on the ability of rhBMP-4 to enhance bone formation in the rat calvarial defect model. Methods: Calvarial, 8-mm-diameter, critical-size defects were created in 100 male Sprague-Dawley rats. Five groups of 20 animals each received either rhBMP-4 (2.5 mu g) using beta-TCP with a particle size of 50 to 150 mu m, rhBMP-4 (2.5 mu g) using beta-TCP with a particle size of 150 to 500 mu m, a beta-TCP control with a particle size of 50 to 150 mu m, a beta-TCP control with a particle size of 150 to 500 mu m, or a sham-surgery control, respectively, and were evaluated by measuring their histologic and histometric parameters following a 2- and 8-week healing interval. Results: There were no significant differences in the defect closure, new bone area, or augmented area between either the two rhBMP-4/beta-TCP groups or between the two beta-TCP control groups at 2 and 8 weeks. Conclusions: rhBMP-4 combined with either small- or large-particle beta-TCP had a significant effect on the induction of bone formation compared to either a small- or large-particle beta-TCP control or a sham-surgery control. Within the parameters of this study, varying the particle size of beta-TCP did not seem to have a significant effect on bone formation.

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

4.5
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