Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass ® 45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass ® 45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass ® 45S5 and Biosilicate ® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment.

A novel bioactive vitroceramic presents similar biological responses as autogenous bone grafts

“…In a study using bovine hydroxyapatite and b-tricalcium phosphate presented by De Souza-Nunes et al [33], the authors report direct new bone formation on the surface of the biomaterials granules, as well as foreign body reaction with the presence of multinucleated giant cells. On the contrary, this reaction was not observed when Biosilicate Ò was used in rats' femurs, after 8-12 weeks of implantation in scaffold shape [34]. Certainly, biomaterial morphology interferes with the biological response to its degradation.…”

Characterization andIn VivoBiological Performance of Biosilicate

“…Azenha et al [26] investigated the histological and histomorphometric bone responses induced by Biosilicate and 45S5 Bioglass implants in a femoral bone defect model. Eight and 12 weeks after surgery, histological examination did not reveal persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites.…”

Bioactive glass‐based surfaces induce differential gene expression profiling of osteoblasts

“…The Bio 1P increased the in vitro bone‐like nodule formation and preserved the alveolar ridge height in a pre‐clinical animal model . Considering bone tissue engineering applications, the BioS‐2P can be generated as scaffolds and elicits similar bone response compared with Bio 1P and 45S5 …”

“…2,18 Considering bone tissue engineering applications, the BioS-2P can be generated as scaffolds and elicits similar bone response compared with Bio 1P and 45S5. 19 The encouraging biological findings regarding the osteogenic potential highlighted the relevance of understanding the intracellular mechanisms regulated by BioS-2P to drive osteoblast differentiation. As a first step in this direction, the aim of our study was to analyze the large-scale gene expression of osteoblasts grown on BioS-2P compared with 45S5.…”