Literature DB >> 25785651

Comparison of bone prefabrication with vascularized periosteal flaps, hydroxyapatite, and bioactive glass in rats.

Burak Ersoy1, Mehmet Bayramiçli2, Feriha Ercan3, Hakan Şirinoğlu4, Pınar Turan3, Ayhan Numanoğlu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Periosteal flaps possess osteoprogenitor cells and an osteoinductive potential that can be further augmented by combination with a biodegradable scaffold; therefore, various osteoconductive and osteostimulative biomaterials are frequently combined with periosteal flaps in studies of bone prefabrication. An experimental study was designed to determine and compare the contribution of bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite to osteoneogenesis in rats when combined with a periosteal flap.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 60 Sprague Dawley rats, saphenous artery periosto-fasciocutaneous island flaps were transposed to abdomen. In group 1, the flap was left alone, in group 2, an empty artificial pocket made of Gore-Tex (W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.; Flagstaff, AZ) was sutured onto the periosteal layer, and in groups 3 and 4, the pocket was filled with bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite, respectively. Following sampling for histological analysis, a 4-point scoring system was used to grade inflammatory cell infiltration, osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and cell migration into the bioactive material.
RESULTS: The combination of the periosteal flap with any of the bioactive materials resulted in significantly higher percentages of animals exhibiting osteogenesis (80% in hydroxyapatite group and 93.3% in the bioactive glass group; p = 0.0000528) and angiogenesis. Comparison of the bioactive material groups revealed that a significantly higher proportion of animals in the bioactive glass group exhibited moderate or severe inflammation (80 vs. 20%; p = 0.002814).
CONCLUSION: Periosteal flaps prefabricated with hydroxyapatite or bioactive glass in rats exhibit osteogenic capacities that are not dependent on direct bone contact or proximity to vascular bony tissue. The innate capacity of the periosteal flap when utilized alone for osteoneogenesis was found to be rather insufficient. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25785651     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1396770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Reconstr Microsurg        ISSN: 0743-684X            Impact factor:   2.873


  5 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Vascularized Periosteal Flaps Accelerate Osteointegration and Revascularization of Allografts in Rats.

Authors:  Klaus Dieter Draenert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Periosteal Flaps Enhance Prefabricated Engineered Bone Reparative Potential.

Authors:  A G Abu-Shahba; T Wilkman; R Kornilov; M Adam; K M Salla; J Lindén; A K Lappalainen; R Björkstrand; R Seppänen-Kaijansinkko; B Mannerström
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2021-09-11       Impact factor: 6.116

3.  Effect of hydroxyapatite bioceramics on the growth of osteoblasts and HIF-α/VEGF signal axis in partial hypoxia environment in vitro.

Authors:  Yanyi Liu; Zekun Gan; Fei Hu
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 1.205

Review 4.  In Vivo Bone Tissue Engineering Strategies: Advances and Prospects.

Authors:  Ilya L Tsiklin; Aleksey V Shabunin; Alexandr V Kolsanov; Larisa T Volova
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 4.967

Review 5.  Bone Graft Prefabrication Following the In Vivo Bioreactor Principle.

Authors:  Ru-Lin Huang; Eiji Kobayashi; Kai Liu; Qingfeng Li
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 8.143

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.