In vivo comparison of synthetic osseous graft materials

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the in vivo osseous healing response of 4 commercially-available synthetic bone grafting materials; hydroxylapatite (HA), calcium sulfate (CaSO4) plus autogenous bone, or a bioactive glass ceramic: with particle size of 300-360 microm (BG1) or 90 to 710 microm (BG2). 4 osteotomy sites were prepared in each tibia of 10 adult male rabbits. One unfilled osteotomy site served as negative control (NC) and another site filled with autogenous bone was the positive control (PC). All animals received BG1 in 2 sites and BG2 in 2 sites. 5 animals received HA and five CaSO4 plus autogenous bone in the remaining 2 sites. Animals were sacrificed at 28 days post-surgery, histologic sections obtained and the % surface area of new bone formation for each material was determined by computerized image analysis. All graft sites showed evidence of bone formation, i.e., (NC) 41.95%; (PC) 50.41%; (BG1) 41.82%; (BG2) 40.36%; (HA) 41.83% and (CaSO4) 58.83%. Statistical analysis using an ANOVA with repeated measures on the materials common to all animals (excluding HA and CaSO4 groups) showed significant differences between materials in surface area of bone, with positive controls better than negative controls, and BG1 and BG2 not significantly different from the negative control. These results indicate that synthetic graft materials can support new bone formation in surgically prepared defects. The utility of a rabbit model for studying physiologic osseous turnover and healing is questioned for studies of slowly resorbing synthetic graft materials.

The effect of simvastatin on the regeneration of surgical cavities in the femurs of rabbits

“…The same occurred with the osteoclasts with greater scores in the simvastatin group compared with the control group. These results are in agreement with other studies [16][17][18][19]26 . In the late period of regeneration, simvastatin was able to stimulate a greater presence of osteoblasts and subsequent bone formation.…”

“…At twenty-one days, the VEGF was not statistically significant, which was unlike the osteocalcin, which was significantly more prevalent at this time. At forty-two days, the two markers did not show differences between the groups (Figure 4 16 . Therefore, the evaluation carried out in periods of seven, 21 and 42 days allowed for the analysis of the initial, intermediate and final stages of bone repair 15,16 .…”

Compósito para fabricação de implantes reabsorvíveis para osteossíntese: avaliação da biocompatibilidade em coelhos

“…Esses dados podem ter sido influenciados por diferentes fatores, já que o tecido conjuntivo predominou na interface das regiões distal e proximal ao defeito e o tecido ósseo na região medial. A distância entre a parede óssea do defeito e o compósito pode ter permitido a invasão de tecido conjuntivo, fato que retarda ou até impede a formação do tecido ósseo (MACNEILL et al, 1999). A presença de grande quantidade de medula óssea na região medial ao defeito, origem de células osteoprogenitoras (BROWN & KRAMERS, 1996), pode ter influenciado a formação de tecido ósseo nessa região, o que não ocorre de forma tão pronunciada nas regiões proximal e distal, local de predominância de osso cortical.…”

Comparative evaluation of different bone graft materials: a review

“…8 Synthetic bone graft materials has shown potential for new bone formation. 39 Hydroxyapatite is a biocompatible slowly resorbing osteoconductive material. 40,41 Osteoblast differentiation and new bone formation at the surface of porous HA ceramic granules has also been demonstrated.…”