Literature DB >> 3516501

Quantitative comparisons of healing in cranial fresh autografts, frozen autografts and processed autografts, and allografts in canine skull defects.

S A Oklund, D J Prolo, R V Gutierrez, S E King.   

Abstract

Adult dog skull defects larger than 17 mm do not spontaneously heal. A quest for a potentially viable, cosmetically, mechanically, and technically acceptable template for human cranial reconstruction prompted a comparison of processed autogeneic and allogeneic bone implants with a fresh autograft control in the dog. Quantitative reproducible observations demonstrated that fresh calvarial bone autografts were superior to the nonviable implants in volume percent defect filled, mm2 new cortical bone, mm2 new and old cortical bone, and cortical bone porosity. Frozen autografts achieved 75%, antigen-extracted, autolyzed, partially demineralized auto- and allografts, 50% of the overall efficiency of fresh autografts. Fresh cancellous bone added to allografts did not improve long-term repair. Remodeling of all grafts appeared consistent with osteoconductive invasion by peripheral host endosteal and diploic elements; host external periosteum and dura contributed less. Central osteoinductive recruitment of mesenchymal cells from muscle or dura seemed not to occur in the adult dog. Partially demineralized dog calvarial grafts were resorbed without acting as a template for new bone formation. Surface demineralization, antigen extraction, and autolytic digestion of autografts and allografts, with or without fresh iliac bone, did not improve calvarial bone regeneration in adult dogs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3516501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  8 in total

1.  One-stage hip arthroplasty and bone grafting for bilateral femoral head osteonecrosis.

Authors:  Lih-Yuann Shih; Yon-Cheong Wong; Hsin-Nung Shih
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  [Osteoinduction and -reparation].

Authors:  N R Kübler
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  1997-02

Review 3.  Bioinspired Collagen Scaffolds in Cranial Bone Regeneration: From Bedside to Bench.

Authors:  Justine C Lee; Elizabeth J Volpicelli
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 9.933

4.  Injectable bone tissue engineering using expanded mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  Yoichi Yamada; Sayaka Nakamura; Kenji Ito; Eri Umemura; Kenji Hara; Tetsuro Nagasaka; Akihiro Abe; Shunsuke Baba; Yasushi Furuichi; Yuichi Izumi; Ophir D Klein; Toshihiko Wakabayashi
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.277

5.  Comparative osteogenesis of maxilla and iliac crest human bone marrow stromal cells attached to oxidized titanium: a pilot study.

Authors:  Sunday O Akintoye; Parascevi Giavis; Derek Stefanik; Lawrence Levin; Francis K Mante
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 6.  Tissue engineering: state of the art in oral rehabilitation.

Authors:  E L Scheller; P H Krebsbach; D H Kohn
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.837

Review 7.  Gap junction intercellular communication: a review of a potential platform to modulate craniofacial tissue engineering.

Authors:  Ricardo A Rossello; David H Kohn
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.368

Review 8.  Cell-based bone tissue engineering.

Authors:  Gert J Meijer; Joost D de Bruijn; Ron Koole; Clemens A van Blitterswijk
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 11.069

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.