BACKGROUND: The study evaluates the osteogenic properties and biocompatibility of growth factor-rich demineralized bone matrix (GDBM) by comparing with cancellous mineralized bone matrix (CMBM) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (ABBM). METHODS: Thirty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were used (n = 6/group/time point). To assess biocompatibility and osteoinductivity, the respective bone matrices were randomly placed in subcutaneous pouches for 7 and 28 days and evaluated by histology and osteopontin expression. Osteoconductivity was assessed by randomly implanting respective bone matrices in osteotomies on femurs for 14 and 28 days and evaluated by microcomputed tomography and histology. RESULTS: Neither acute inflammation nor mineralized tissue was noted in any of the subcutaneous specimens, whereas expression of osteopontin was more prominent in the GDBM group. Among the femoral specimens, the greatest relative bone volume (bone volume [BV] divided by trabecular volume [TV]) and trabecular thickness was noted in the ABBM group at both time points, whereas less BV/TV was noted in GDBM group at day 14. Residual matrix particles were noted in all examined groups at both time points, without significant differences regarding defect fill between groups. The GDBM group presented similar levels of newly formed bone compartment and marrow space to those of the ABBM group. CONCLUSIONS: GDBM demonstrated acceptable biocompatibility and osteogenic potential comparable to ABBM in vivo. Further investigations in a more clinically relevant model are warranted.
BACKGROUND: The study evaluates the osteogenic properties and biocompatibility of growth factor-rich demineralized bone matrix (GDBM) by comparing with cancellous mineralized bone matrix (CMBM) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (ABBM). METHODS: Thirty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were used (n = 6/group/time point). To assess biocompatibility and osteoinductivity, the respective bone matrices were randomly placed in subcutaneous pouches for 7 and 28 days and evaluated by histology and osteopontin expression. Osteoconductivity was assessed by randomly implanting respective bone matrices in osteotomies on femurs for 14 and 28 days and evaluated by microcomputed tomography and histology. RESULTS: Neither acute inflammation nor mineralized tissue was noted in any of the subcutaneous specimens, whereas expression of osteopontin was more prominent in the GDBM group. Among the femoral specimens, the greatest relative bone volume (bone volume [BV] divided by trabecular volume [TV]) and trabecular thickness was noted in the ABBM group at both time points, whereas less BV/TV was noted in GDBM group at day 14. Residual matrix particles were noted in all examined groups at both time points, without significant differences regarding defect fill between groups. The GDBM group presented similar levels of newly formed bone compartment and marrow space to those of the ABBM group. CONCLUSIONS:GDBM demonstrated acceptable biocompatibility and osteogenic potential comparable to ABBM in vivo. Further investigations in a more clinically relevant model are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biocompatible materials; bone matrix; bone regeneration; cytokines; periodontics; tissue scaffolds