Lingfei Wei1, Richard J Miron1, Bin Shi1, Yufeng Zhang1. 1. The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST), Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the osteoinductive and osteopromotive potential of two widely used demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (DFDBA) (Osteotech® DFDBA and LifeNet® DFDBA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-seven male Wistar rats (mean body weight 200 g) were treated with either DFDBA from Osteotech and LifeNet or control for femoral and intramuscular defects and assigned to histological analysis at 2, 4, and 8 weeks postimplantation. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Safranin-O, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), and osteopontin (OPN) staining were performed. Quantitative analysis of mineralized new bone to total volume (BV/TV) was assessed by micro-computed tomography. RESULTS: Both allografts demonstrated osteoinductive potential at 2 weeks as assessed by intramuscular bone formation. LifeNet DFDBA displayed continual new bone formation at 4 and 8 weeks, whereas Osteotech particles were fully resorbed by 4 weeks postimplantation. Femur defects demonstrated significantly greater BV/TV at 4 and 8 weeks with higher expression of OPN staining around LifeNet DFDBA particles. TRAP-positive cells were visible in and around both allograft materials. CONCLUSION: The results from the present study indicate that variability among allografts exists. In the present, LifeNet DFDBA supported more new bone formation. Further larger animal models or clinical trials are required to validate these findings.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the osteoinductive and osteopromotive potential of two widely used demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (DFDBA) (Osteotech® DFDBA and LifeNet® DFDBA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-seven male Wistar rats (mean body weight 200 g) were treated with either DFDBA from Osteotech and LifeNet or control for femoral and intramuscular defects and assigned to histological analysis at 2, 4, and 8 weeks postimplantation. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Safranin-O, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), and osteopontin (OPN) staining were performed. Quantitative analysis of mineralized new bone to total volume (BV/TV) was assessed by micro-computed tomography. RESULTS: Both allografts demonstrated osteoinductive potential at 2 weeks as assessed by intramuscular bone formation. LifeNet DFDBA displayed continual new bone formation at 4 and 8 weeks, whereas Osteotech particles were fully resorbed by 4 weeks postimplantation. Femur defects demonstrated significantly greater BV/TV at 4 and 8 weeks with higher expression of OPN staining around LifeNet DFDBA particles. TRAP-positive cells were visible in and around both allograft materials. CONCLUSION: The results from the present study indicate that variability among allografts exists. In the present, LifeNet DFDBA supported more new bone formation. Further larger animal models or clinical trials are required to validate these findings.
Authors: Richard J Miron; Qiao Zhang; Anton Sculean; Daniel Buser; Benjamin E Pippenger; Michel Dard; Yoshinori Shirakata; Fatiha Chandad; Yufeng Zhang Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Joana M Ramis; Javier Calvo; Aina Matas; Cristina Corbillo; Antoni Gayà; Marta Monjo Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 3.896