France Lambert1, Miljana Bacevic2,3, Pierre Layrolle4, Peter Schüpbach5,6, Pierre Drion7, Eric Rompen1. 1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Surgery, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 2. Dental Biomaterials Research Unit (d-BRU), Faculty of Medicine, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium. 3. Clinic of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 4. Inserm U957, Laboratory of Physiopathology of Bone Resorption, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nantes, Liège, France. 5. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Regents University, Augusta, GA, USA. 7. Central Animal Facility, Giga-R, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
AIMS: The primary objective of this study was to compare the in vivo performance, namely in terms of quantity of newly formed bone and bone-to-material contact (osteoconductivity), of three hydroxyapatite-based biomaterials (HA) of different origins (natural or synthetic) or manufacturing process in a sinus lift model in rabbits. The secondary objective was to correlate the findings with the physical and topographical characteristics of the biomaterials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two bovine HA manufactured with different processes (bovine hydroxyapatites [BHA] and cuttlebone hydroxyapatite [CBHA]) and a synthetic hydroxyapatite (SHA) sintered at high temperature were characterised with scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) and the measurement of specific surface area (BET). The materials were implanted in a sinus lift model in rabbits; histological and histomorphometric evaluation using non-decalcified sections was performed at 1, 5 and 12 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: The studied biomaterials displayed a different surface topography. The two natural HA displayed significantly higher bone quantities (P = 0.0017; BHA vs. SHA, P = 0.0018 and CBHA vs. SHA, P = 0.033) at 5 and 12 weeks compared to the synthetic one (SHA). Moreover, the osteoconductivity (bone-to-material contact) was significantly higher in the BHA group compared to the two other groups (P = 0.014; BHA vs. SHA, P = 0.023 and BHA vs. CBHA, P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: HA-based biomaterials from diverse origins and manufacturing processes displayed different topographical characteristics. This may have influenced different regenerated bone architecture observed; more bone was found with natural HA compared to the synthetic one, and significantly higher bone-to-material contacts were found with BHA.
AIMS: The primary objective of this study was to compare the in vivo performance, namely in terms of quantity of newly formed bone and bone-to-material contact (osteoconductivity), of three hydroxyapatite-based biomaterials (HA) of different origins (natural or synthetic) or manufacturing process in a sinus lift model in rabbits. The secondary objective was to correlate the findings with the physical and topographical characteristics of the biomaterials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two bovine HA manufactured with different processes (bovine hydroxyapatites [BHA] and cuttlebone hydroxyapatite [CBHA]) and a synthetic hydroxyapatite (SHA) sintered at high temperature were characterised with scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) and the measurement of specific surface area (BET). The materials were implanted in a sinus lift model in rabbits; histological and histomorphometric evaluation using non-decalcified sections was performed at 1, 5 and 12 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: The studied biomaterials displayed a different surface topography. The two natural HA displayed significantly higher bone quantities (P = 0.0017; BHA vs. SHA, P = 0.0018 and CBHA vs. SHA, P = 0.033) at 5 and 12 weeks compared to the synthetic one (SHA). Moreover, the osteoconductivity (bone-to-material contact) was significantly higher in the BHA group compared to the two other groups (P = 0.014; BHA vs. SHA, P = 0.023 and BHA vs. CBHA, P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: HA-based biomaterials from diverse origins and manufacturing processes displayed different topographical characteristics. This may have influenced different regenerated bone architecture observed; more bone was found with natural HA compared to the synthetic one, and significantly higher bone-to-material contacts were found with BHA.
Authors: Tabata P Sato; Bruno V M Rodrigues; Daphne C R Mello; Eliseu A Münchow; Juliana S Ribeiro; João Paulo B Machado; Luana M R Vasconcellos; Anderson O Lobo; Marco C Bottino; Alexandre L S Borges Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Aniek S Budiatin; Maria A Gani; Chrismawan Ardianto; Aulia M Raharjanti; Indah Septiani; Ni Putu K P Putri; Junaidi Khotib Journal: Int J Biomater Date: 2021-05-05
Authors: Saulo Henrique Salviano; João Carlos Amorim Lopes; Igor da Silva Brum; Lúcio Frigo; Mario José Dos Santos; Sílvio Roberto Consonni; Jorge José de Carvalho Journal: Int Med Case Rep J Date: 2021-09-29
Authors: Bruno De Carvalho; Eric Rompen; Geoffrey Lecloux; Peter Schupbach; Emilie Dory; Jean-François Art; France Lambert Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.623