| Literature DB >> 23989855 |
A Meimandi Parizi1, A Oryan, Z Shafiei-Sarvestani, A Bigham-Sadegh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a continuing search for bone substitutes to avoid or minimize the need for autogenous bone grafts. Hydroxyapatite, a crystalline phase of calcium phosphate found naturally in bone minerals, has shown tremendous promise as a graft material. Coral is an osteoconductive material used as a bone graft extender. This study examined the effect of hydroxyapatite and Persian Gulf coral on osteogenesis in vivo using a rabbit model of bone healing.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23989855 PMCID: PMC3828488 DOI: 10.1007/s10195-013-0261-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Traumatol ISSN: 1590-9921
Modified Lane and Sandhu radiological scoring system
| Bone formation | |
| No evidence of bone formation | 0 |
| Bone formation occupying 25 % of the defect | 1 |
| Bone formation occupying 50 % of the defect | 2 |
| Bone formation occupying 75 % of the defect | 3 |
| Bone formation occupying 100 % of the defect | 4 |
| Union (proximal and distal evaluated separately) | |
| No union | 0 |
| Possible union | 1 |
| Radiographic union | 2 |
| Remodeling | |
| No evidence of remodeling | 0 |
| Remodeling of medullary canal | 1 |
| Full remodeling of cortex | 2 |
| Total points possible per category | |
| Bone formation | 4 |
| Proximal union | 2 |
| Distal union | 2 |
| Remodeling | 2 |
| Maximum score | 10 |
Radiographical findings for bone formation at various postoperative intervals
| Postoperative days | Median (min–max) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||
| 14 | 0 (0–1) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0.1 |
| 28 | 1 (0–1) | 1 (1–2) | 1 (0–2) | 0.06 |
| 42 | 1 (0–3) | 2 (1–3)b | 2 (1–3)c |
|
| 56 | 2 (1–3) | 3 (2–3)d | 3 (2–4)e |
|
Significant P values are presented in bold
aKruskal–Wallis nonparametric ANOVA
bP = 0.03 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
cP = 0.04 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
dP = 0.02 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
eP = 0.01 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
Fig. 1Radiographs of treated forelimb in control group on postoperative day 1 (a), 14 (b), 28 (c), 42 (d), and 56 (e)
Fig. 2Radiographs of treated forelimb in hydroxyapatite group on postoperative day 1 (a), 14 (b), 28 (c), 42 (d), and 56 (e)
Fig. 3Radiographs of treated forelimb in coral group on postoperative day 1 (a), 14 (b), 28 (c), 42 (d), and 56 (e)
Radiographical findings for proximal union at various postoperative intervals
| Postoperative days | Median (min–max) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||
| 14 | 0 (0–0) | 1 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 1.0 |
| 28 | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 0.5 |
| 42 | 1 (0–1) | 1 (1–2)b | 1 (1–2)c |
|
| 56 | 1 (0–2) | 2 (1–2)d | 2 (1–2)e |
|
Significant P values are presented in bold
aKruskal–Wallis nonparametric ANOVA
bP = 0.02 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
dP = 0.05 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
cP = 0.02 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
eP = 0.01 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
Radiographical findings for distal union at various postoperative intervals
| Postoperative days | Median (min–max) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||
| 14 | 0 (0–1) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0.1 |
| 28 | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 0.5 |
| 42 | 2 (0–2) | 1 (0–2) | 1 (0–2) | 0.5 |
| 56 | 2 (0–2) | 2 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.1 |
Significant P values are presented in bold
aKruskal–Wallis nonparametric ANOVA
Radiographical findings for remodeling at various postoperative intervals
| Postoperative days | Median (min–max) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||
| 14 | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 1.0 |
| 28 | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0.4 |
| 42 | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 1.0 |
| 56 | 0 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–2) | 0.1 |
Significant P values are presented in bold
aKruskal–Wallis nonparametric ANOVA
Bone measurements at macroscopic and microscopic level
| Bone evaluation type | Median (min–max) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||
| Macroscopic union* | 1 (1–2) | 2 (1–3)b | 2 (2–3)c |
|
| Microscopic evaluation† | 2 (1–5) | 6 (5–7)d | 6 (5–7)e |
|
Significant P values are presented in bold
*Complete union (+3 score), presence of cartilage, soft tissue or cracks within the defect indicating possible unstable union (+1 or +2 score), complete instability at the defect site indicating nonunion (0 score)
†Empty (0 score), fibrous tissue only (1 score), more fibrous tissue than fibrocartilage (2 score), more fibrocartilage than fibrous tissue (3 score), fibrocartilage only (4 score), more fibrocartilage than bone (5 score), more bone than fibrocartilage (6 score), bone only (7 score)
aKruskal–Wallis nonparametric ANOVA
bP = 0.005 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
cP = 0.005 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
dP = 0.001 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
eP = 0.0 (compared with control by Mann–Whitney U test)
Fig. 4Photomicrographs from the control group showing fibrous connective tissue in the defect area without bone marrow formation (yellow rectangle), old bone region (white rectangle) (a, H & E stain 4×), and extensive fibrocartilage (b, H & E stain 40×). Photomicrographs from the hydroxyapatite group, showing trabecular bone formation (c, H & E stain 10×) and woven bone (d, H & E stain 40×). Photomicrographs from the coral group showing trabecular-pattern bone formation in grafted area (black rectangle) and grafted area with old bone and marrow (white rectangle) (e, H & E stain 4×). Note the trabecular bone and chondroplasia zone in the coral group (f, H & E stain 4×)
Biomechanical findings at 56th postoperative day
| Three-point bending test criteria | Mean ± SEM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | Coral ( | Hydroxyapatite ( | ||||
| Normal limb | Treated limb | Normal limb | Treated limb | Normal limb | Treated limb | |
| Ultimate strength (N) | 66.8 ± 10.5a | 38.6 ± 7.5 | 63.6 ± 14.5 | 53.16 ± 9.5 | 60.6 ± 10.5 | 70.8 ± 8.4b |
| Stress (N/mm2) | 3.64 ± 0.7 | 2.18 ± 0.3 | 3.49 ± 1.1 | 2.43 ± 0.43 | 4.1 ± 0.83 | 3.75 ± 0.71 |
| Stiffness (N/mm) | 128.3 ± 7.4c | 91.6 ± 14.9 | 133.3 ± 13.5 | 88.0 ± 14.9 | 96.0 ± 11.6 | 75.0 ± 5.6 |
| Strain (%) | 7.9 ± 0.5 | 8.4 ± 0.6 | 8.35 ± 0.7 | 9.3 ± 0.84 | 7.1 ± 1.1 | 6.7 ± 0.80 |
aP = 0.01 (normal limb compared with treated limb in control group by Student t test)
bP = 0.05 (treated limb compared with treated limb in control group by one-way ANOVA test)
cP = 0.04 (normal limb compared with treated limb in control group by Student t test)