4.5 Article

Defect healing with various bone substitutes

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 606-614

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12395

关键词

animal study; biomaterials; bone substitutes

资金

  1. Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveBiphasic calcium phosphates (BCPs), mixture of hydroxyapatite (HA) and -tricalcium phosphate (-TCP) are synthetic bone substitutes, which are increasingly used in adjunctive implant and periodontal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate and amount of bone regeneration in defects filled with three different BCPs in relation to deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM). MethodTen New Zealand rabbits were used in the experiment. Four defects of 6mm in diameter were prepared in each rabbit, and they were filled with different biomaterials: BCP with HA/-TCP ratio of 60/40 (BCPG1), ratio of 10/90 (BCPG2), a BCP with polylactide incorporated (moldable BCP) and DBBM. Group A (n=5) rabbits were sacrificed after 3months, and group B (n=5) were sacrificed 6months after surgery. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed. Mean percentages of mineralized new bone (%MNB), bone marrow (%BM), residual grafting material (%RG) and soft tissue (%ST) were calculated for each bone substitute. ResultsPercentages of MNB in defects filled with the four bone substitutes were comparable after 3months and 6months. Amount of MNB regenerated for moldable BCP and DBBM after 6months were significantly higher than after 3months (P<0.05), whereas those for BCPG1 and BCPG2 did not show significant change. Percentage RG was significantly higher in moldable BCP compared with BCPG1 (P<0.05) after 3months. ConclusionAfter 3months, the granules-form synthetic materials performed better than DBBM in terms of bone regeneration. The grafting materials performed similarly after 6months of healing. Addition of polylactide in moldable BCP may slow down osteogenesis in grafted defects.

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