Literature DB >> 25448127

Bone healing around nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite, deproteinized bovine bone mineral, biphasic calcium phosphate, and autogenous bone in mandibular bone defects.

Nina Broggini1,2, Dieter D Bosshardt1,3, Simon S Jensen1,4, Michael M Bornstein1, Chun-Cheng Wang5, Daniel Buser1.   

Abstract

The individual healing profile of a given bone substitute with respect to osteogenic potential and substitution rate must be considered when selecting adjunctive grafting materials for bone regeneration procedures. In this study, standardized mandibular defects in minipigs were filled with nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA-SiO), deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) with a 60/40% HA/β-TCP (BCP 60/40) ratio, or particulate autogenous bone (A) for histological and histomorphometric analysis. At 2 weeks, percent filler amongst the test groups (DBBM (35.65%), HA-SiO (34.47%), followed by BCP 60/40 (23.64%)) was significantly higher than the more rapidly substituted autogenous bone (17.1%). Autogenous bone yielded significantly more new bone (21.81%) over all test groups (4.91%-7.74%) and significantly more osteoid (5.53%) than BCP 60/40 (3%) and DBBM (2.25%). At 8 weeks, percent filler amongst the test groups (DBBM (31.6%), HA-SiO (31.23%), followed by BCP 60/40 (23.65%)) demonstrated a similar pattern and was again significantly higher as compared to autogenous bone (9.29%). Autogenous bone again exhibited statistically significantly greater new bone (55.13%) over HA-SiO (40.62%), BCP 60/40 (40.21%), and DBBM (36.35%). These results suggest that the osteogenic potential of HA-SiO and BCP is inferior when compared to autogenous bone. However, in instances where a low substitution rate is desired to maintain the volume stability of augmented sites, particularly in the esthetic zone, HA-SiO and DBBM may be favored.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  autogenous bone graft; biphasic calcium phosphate; deproteinized bovine bone mineral; guided bone regeneration; unsintered nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25448127     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater        ISSN: 1552-4973            Impact factor:   3.368


  3 in total

1.  Biomaterial design strategies to address obstacles in craniomaxillofacial bone repair.

Authors:  Marley J Dewey; Brendan A C Harley
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.036

2.  Addition of Synthetic Biomaterials to Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral (DBBM) for Bone Augmentation-A Preclinical In Vivo Study.

Authors:  Masako Fujioka-Kobayashi; Hiroki Katagiri; Niklaus P Lang; Jean-Claude Imber; Benoit Schaller; Nikola Saulacic
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-09-10       Impact factor: 6.208

3.  Comparative Histological and Histomorphometric Results of Six Biomaterials Used in Two-Stage Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Model after 6-Month Healing.

Authors:  Gerardo La Monaca; Giovanna Iezzi; Maria Paola Cristalli; Nicola Pranno; Gian Luca Sfasciotti; Iole Vozza
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.