Yi Li1, Wei Ran, Gai-ling Wang, Xiang-dong Jing. 1. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the biocompatibility of new bone tissue engineering scaffolds, A:D, L-polylactic acid (PDLLA)/polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol-polylactic acid-polylactic acid (PLA-PEG-PLA)/Tricalcium phosphate and B: PDLLA/PLA-PEG-PLA in vivo, compared with PDLLA in repair of a rabbit mandibular body defect. METHODS: 24 New Zealand adult rabbits were divided into 4 groups randomly. 15 mm x 6 mm defects were made surgically in the bilateral mandibular bodies and each hemi-mandible was assigned as an experimental unit. The defects were randomly repaired with scaffold materials in each group. Specimens obtained were evaluated with general observation, X-ray, histomorphology and computerized graphical analysis at 2, 4 , 8, 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Compared with PDLLA, the new scaffold materials B showed biocompatibility. At the same time the quantity of new bone produced was much more than that in control group (P<0.05). The new scaffold materials A showed the clear chronic granulomatous inflammation. CONCLUSION: New scaffold material B had sound biocompatibility. It was much better than PDLLA. So it may be an ideal bone tissue engineering scaffold material. A is not adapted to be used as scaffold material.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the biocompatibility of new bone tissue engineering scaffolds, A:D, L-polylactic acid (PDLLA)/polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol-polylactic acid-polylactic acid (PLA-PEG-PLA)/Tricalcium phosphate and B: PDLLA/PLA-PEG-PLA in vivo, compared with PDLLA in repair of a rabbit mandibular body defect. METHODS: 24 New Zealand adult rabbits were divided into 4 groups randomly. 15 mm x 6 mm defects were made surgically in the bilateral mandibular bodies and each hemi-mandible was assigned as an experimental unit. The defects were randomly repaired with scaffold materials in each group. Specimens obtained were evaluated with general observation, X-ray, histomorphology and computerized graphical analysis at 2, 4 , 8, 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Compared with PDLLA, the new scaffold materials B showed biocompatibility. At the same time the quantity of new bone produced was much more than that in control group (P<0.05). The new scaffold materials A showed the clear chronic granulomatous inflammation. CONCLUSION: New scaffold material B had sound biocompatibility. It was much better than PDLLA. So it may be an ideal bone tissue engineering scaffold material. A is not adapted to be used as scaffold material.