Literature DB >> 15111816

The use of Novabone and Norian in cranioplasty: a comparative study.

Ahmed Elshahat1, Michele A Shermak, Nozomu Inoue, Edmund Y S Chao, Paul Manson.   

Abstract

Bone replacement products have enhanced the ease of reconstructing bone while improving morbidity related to bone harvest. Although these products are successfully used, studies of bone healing and biomechanical strength are lacking. We aimed to compare how Norian CRS (cranial replacement substance) and Novabone C/M heal in a cranial defect. Adult New Zealand rabbits underwent removal of a critical size cranial defect. The defect was filled with Novabone (n = 8), Novabone plus demineralized bone matrix (n = 8), or Norian (n = 8), or it was left empty (n = 8). Rabbits were euthanized at 8 weeks. Cranial specimens were harvested and soft radiographs, contact microradiographs, and biomechanical testing were done. Soft radiographs revealed opacification like adjacent bone with Novabone, which was augmented when Novabone was combined with demineralized bone matrix. Norian maintained an opaque appearance. The control group did not heal. Contact microradiographs demonstrated bone within the healing defect with Novabone, which was augmented by demineralized bone matrix. Norian was not replaced with bone but served as a scaffold for bone formation. Biomechanical indentation testing demonstrated that the stiffness of Norian was the highest. Novabone plus demineralized bone matrix had a higher stiffness than Novabone alone. All experimental groups had a statistically significant difference compared with Norian. None of the groups achieved the strength of unoperated native bone. Studying two popular products, we found evidence that Novabone was incorporated into cranial bone, regenerating the bone. Novabone healed at a faster rate, creating a stronger product, with demineralized bone matrix. The biomechanical strength of the healed defect was higher in the Norian group, because the bone cement remained solid and was not incorporated, unlike crania reconstructed with Novabone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15111816     DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200405000-00029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  5 in total

Review 1.  [Bone substitute. Transplants and replacement materials--an update].

Authors:  C Rentsch; B Rentsch; D Scharnweber; H Zwipp; S Rammelt
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Systematic comparison of biologically active foreign ions-codoped calcium phosphate microparticles on osteogenic differentiation in rat osteoporotic and normal mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  Xiao-Yi Chen; San-Zhong Xu; Xuan-Wei Wang; Xian-Yan Yang; Liang Ma; Lei Zhang; Guo-Jing Yang; Fan Yang; Lin-Hong Wang; Xin-Li Zhang; Kang Ting; Chang-You Gao; Xiao-Zhou Mou; Zhong-Ru Gou; Hai Zou
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-30

3.  Risedronate Effects on the In Vivo Bioactive Glass Behavior: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Histopathological Studies.

Authors:  Siwar Mosbahi; Hassane Oudadesse; Claire Roiland; Bertrand Lefeuvre; Lotfi Slimani; Hassib Keskes
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Warfare-related secondary anterior cranioplasty.

Authors:  Ali Ebrahimi; Nasrin Nejadsarvari; Hamid Reza Rasouli; Azin Ebrahimi
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016 Jan-Jun

5.  MagnetOs, Vitoss, and Novabone in a Multi-endpoint Study of Posterolateral Fusion: A True Fusion or Not?

Authors:  Lukas A van Dijk; Florence Barrère-de Groot; Antoine J W P Rosenberg; Matthew Pelletier; Chris Christou; Joost D de Bruijn; William R Walsh
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 1.723

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.