Literature DB >> 18677495

The efficacy of Biobon and Ostim within metaphyseal defects using the Göttinger Minipig.

Christian K G Spies1, Stefan Schnürer, Tobias Gotterbarm, Steffen Breusch.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To compare bio, osteocompatibility, rate of resorption and remodeling dynamics of two clinically used bone substitutes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized fashion Biobon and Ostim were implanted bilaterally into the proximal metaphyseal tibiae of 18 Göttinger Minipigs in a direct right versus left "intra-individual" comparison. Fluorescent labelling was used. Microradiographic, histological and morphometric evaluation was carried out at 6, 12 and 52 weeks.
RESULTS: Both bone substitutes showed good biocompatibility, bioactivity and osteoconductivity. The degradation dynamics of both materials differed. Degradation of Ostim stopped after 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas Biobon was degraded slowly but evenly over the time intervals. Only at 6 weeks a significant (P < 0.05) difference in resorption rate was detected. Both Biobon and Ostim showed incomplete resorption after a year.
CONCLUSION: After 1 year no "restitutio ad integrum" could be observed in either group. Similar to ceramics, a thorough osseous incorporation seemed to inhibit further degradation of both bone substitute materials.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18677495     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-008-0705-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  5 in total

1.  No effect of subperiosteal growth factor application on periosteal neo-chondrogenesis in osteoperiosteal bone grafts for osteochondral defect repair.

Authors:  Tobias Gotterbarm; Steffen J Breusch; Simona Berardi Vilei; Pierre Mainil-Varlet; Wiltrud Richter; Martin Jung
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Comparison of titanium soaked in 5 M NaOH or 5 M KOH solutions.

Authors:  Christina Kim; Matthew R Kendall; Matthew A Miller; Courtney L Long; Preston R Larson; Mary Beth Humphrey; Andrew S Madden; A Cuneyt Tas
Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 7.328

Review 3.  The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products.

Authors:  Michael L Etheridge; Stephen A Campbell; Arthur G Erdman; Christy L Haynes; Susan M Wolf; Jeffrey McCullough
Journal:  Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 5.307

4.  Osteogenic capacity of nanocrystalline bone cement in a weight-bearing defect at the ovine tibial metaphysis.

Authors:  Christoph Harms; Kai Helms; Tibor Taschner; Ioannis Stratos; Anita Ignatius; Thomas Gerber; Solvig Lenz; Stefan Rammelt; Brigitte Vollmar; Thomas Mittlmeier
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-06-15

5.  Divergent resorbability and effects on osteoclast formation of commonly used bone substitutes in a human in vitro-assay.

Authors:  Johannes Keller; Silja Brink; Björn Busse; Arndt F Schilling; Thorsten Schinke; Michael Amling; Tobias Lange
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.