OBJECTIVES: A comparison of synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide, xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute materials with empty control sites in terms of bone regeneration enhancement in a rabbit calvarial four non-critical-sized defect model. METHODS: In each of six rabbits, four bicortical calvarial bone defects were generated. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: (1) empty control site, (2) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based (HA/SiO) test granules, (3) xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules, (4) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based (HA/SiO) test two granules. The results of the latter granules have not been reported due to their size being three times bigger than the other two granule types. After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and un-decalcified sections were obtained for histological analyses. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test was applied (P<0.05). RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis showed an average area fraction of newly formed bone of 12.32±10.36% for the empty control, 17.47±6.42% for the xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules group, and 21.2±5.32% for the group treated with synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based granules. Based on the middle section, newly formed bone bridged the defect to 38.33±37.55% in the empty control group, 54.33±22.12% in the xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules group, and to 79±13.31% in the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based granules group. The bone-to-bone substitute contact was 46.38±18.98% for the xenogenic and 59.86±14.92% for the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based granules group. No significant difference in terms of bone formation and defect bridging could be detected between the two bone substitute materials or the empty defect. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide granules provide comparable results with a standard xenogenic bovine mineral in terms of bone formation and defect bridging in non-critical size defects.
OBJECTIVES: A comparison of synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide, xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute materials with empty control sites in terms of bone regeneration enhancement in a rabbit calvarial four non-critical-sized defect model. METHODS: In each of six rabbits, four bicortical calvarial bone defects were generated. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: (1) empty control site, (2) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based (HA/SiO) test granules, (3) xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules, (4) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based (HA/SiO) test two granules. The results of the latter granules have not been reported due to their size being three times bigger than the other two granule types. After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and un-decalcified sections were obtained for histological analyses. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test was applied (P<0.05). RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis showed an average area fraction of newly formed bone of 12.32±10.36% for the empty control, 17.47±6.42% for the xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules group, and 21.2±5.32% for the group treated with synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based granules. Based on the middle section, newly formed bone bridged the defect to 38.33±37.55% in the empty control group, 54.33±22.12% in the xenogenic hydroxyapatite -based granules group, and to 79±13.31% in the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide -based granules group. The bone-to-bone substitute contact was 46.38±18.98% for the xenogenic and 59.86±14.92% for the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based granules group. No significant difference in terms of bone formation and defect bridging could be detected between the two bone substitute materials or the empty defect. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide granules provide comparable results with a standard xenogenic bovine mineral in terms of bone formation and defect bridging in non-critical size defects.
Authors: Tse-Hsiang Chen; Chafik Ghayor; Barbara Siegenthaler; Felix Schuler; Jasmine Rüegg; Michael De Wild; Franz E Weber Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 3.845