| Literature DB >> 34287608 |
Patricia Brassolatti1, Paulo Sérgio Bossini2, Ana Laura Martins de Andrade3, Genoveva Lourdes Flores Luna4, Juliana Virginio da Silva5, Luciana Almeida-Lopes6, Marcos Aurélio Napolitano7, Lucimar Retto da Silva de Avó8, Ângela Merice de Oliveira Leal8, Fernanda de Freitas Anibal9.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare two types of different scaffolds in critical bone defects in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34287608 PMCID: PMC8291905 DOI: 10.1590/ACB360605
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Cir Bras ISSN: 0102-8650 Impact factor: 1.388
Description of the experimental groups with the respective number of animals in each evaluated period.
| Experimental groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial period | Control group | Biomaterial group 1 | Biomaterial group 2 |
| 15 days | 8 animals | 8 animals | 8 animals |
| 30 days | 8 animals | 8 animals | 8 animals |
| 60 days | 8 animals | 8 animals | 8 animals |
Figure 1Scaffolds of the biomaterials used in this study. (a) HA/PLGA scaffold; (b) HA/PLGA/Bleed scaffold. The scaffolds of both experimental groups had 8 mm of diameter and were 1.5 mm thick.
Figure 2Photomicrographs representative of experimental groups. (a) Control group 15 days, (b) Biomaterial group 1 at 15 days, (c) Biomaterial group 2 at 15 days, (d) Control group at 30 days, (e) Biomaterial group 1 at 30 days,(f) Biomaterial group 2 at 30 days, (g) Control group at 60 days, (h) Biomaterial group 1 at 60 days, (i) biomaterial group 2 at 60 days. Coloration: hematoxylin and eosin (HE), bar = 40 µm, objective increase x10.
Figure 3Representative graph of morphometric analysis **.
Figure 4Representative graph of imunohistochemistry analysis of Collagen-I *,**.
Figure 5Representative graph of imunohistochemistry analysis of Rank-L*,