AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the osteoconductivity and suitability of three biomaterials used as particulate fillers; S53P4 bioactive glass, allogeneic fresh frozen bone and coral-derived calcium carbonate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Materials were implanted into drill-holes in the femoral condyles of adult rabbits. Follow-ups were performed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Host-response, osteoconductivity, bonding and filler-effect were evaluated by SEM, EDXA and histology and histomorphometry to evaluate. RESULTS: All three materials were found to be biocompatible and osteoconductive. Defects filled with allograft seemed to have more bone at 24 weeks, although no statistically significant difference in new bone growth was found. In earlier time points, coral, however, was observed to degrade more quickly, leaving more empty space in the defects, thus making it a less suitable filler for cavitary defects. CONCLUSION: At all time points there was less filler material (i.e. biomaterial and new bone) in coral-filled defects than in BAG or allograft filled defects (p < 0.05).
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the osteoconductivity and suitability of three biomaterials used as particulate fillers; S53P4 bioactive glass, allogeneic fresh frozen bone and coral-derived calcium carbonate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Materials were implanted into drill-holes in the femoral condyles of adult rabbits. Follow-ups were performed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Host-response, osteoconductivity, bonding and filler-effect were evaluated by SEM, EDXA and histology and histomorphometry to evaluate. RESULTS: All three materials were found to be biocompatible and osteoconductive. Defects filled with allograft seemed to have more bone at 24 weeks, although no statistically significant difference in new bone growth was found. In earlier time points, coral, however, was observed to degrade more quickly, leaving more empty space in the defects, thus making it a less suitable filler for cavitary defects. CONCLUSION: At all time points there was less filler material (i.e. biomaterial and new bone) in coral-filled defects than in BAG or allograft filled defects (p < 0.05).