Comparing the effects of Bone⁺B® xenograft and InterOss® xenograft bone material on rabbit calvaria bone defect regeneration

Abstract

BackgroundThe bone regeneration therapy is often used in patients with inadequate bone support for implants, particularly following tooth extractions. Xenografts derived from animal tissues are effective bone reconstructive options that resist resorption and pose a low risk of transmitting disease. Therefore, these implants may be a good option for enhancing and stabilizing maxillary sinuses. The purpose of this study was to compare two xenografts, Bone+B® and InterOss®, for the reconstruction of rabbit calvaria defects.Methods and MaterialsThe study involved seven male New Zealand white rabbits. In the surgical procedure, 21 spots were created on both sides of the midline calvarium by creating three 8‐millimeter defects. A control group was used, as well as two treatment groups utilizing Bone+B® Grafts and InterOss® Grafts. After 3 months, the rabbits were euthanized, followed by pathological evaluation. Analysis of these samples focused on bone formation, xenograft remaining material, and inflammation levels, using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0 and SPSS version 24.ResultsWith the application of Bone+B® graft, bone formation ranged from 32% to 45%, with a mean of 37.80% (±5.63), and the remaining material ranged from 28% to 37%, with a mean of 32.60% (±3.65). Using InterOss® grafts, bone formation was 61% to 75%, the mean was 65.83% (±4.75), and the remaining material was 9% to 18%, with a mean of 13.17% (±3.06). The bone formation in the control group ranged from 10% to 25%, with a mean of 17.17% (±6.11). InterOss® had lower inflammation levels than other groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).ConclusionInterOss® bone powder is the best option for maxillofacial surgery and bone reconstruction. This is due to more bone formation, less remaining material, and a lower inflammation level. Compared to the control group, Bone+B® improves healing and bone quality, thus making it an alternative to InterOss®.