The Effect of 2-Butyl-Cyanoacrylate Adhesive in Osteotomies and Bone Grafts in Rabbits: Macroscopic and Radiographic Characteristics

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of butyl-2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in osteotomies and bone grafts, with regard to macroscopic and radiographic characteristics. Methods: Forty-eight rabbits were used, randomly divided into four groups of 12 animals, with observation periods of two, four, eight and 16 weeks. Both thoracic limbs were operated in each animal and two osteotomies were performed in each of the radii, withdrawing a bone fragment (bone graft) of 1 cm in length. On one side, the bone graft was then replaced and a drop of adhesive was applied to each of the osteotomies. On the other side, the same procedure was performed without applying the adhesive. The rejection level for the nullity hypothesis was set at 0.05% or 5%. Results: Blue marks were present in all the surgical specimens in which adhesive was applied. From the fourth week onwards, there was absence of movement of the bone grafts with adhesive and control. In group A, in the proximal osteotomies with adhesive, there was less deviation of the bone graft (p = 0.02). In group C, the union (p = 0.03) and the integration of the bone graft (p = 0.02) were better in the proximal osteotomies with adhesive. Conclusions: The adhesive was not completely metabolized within 16 weeks. There was clinical consolidation of the osteotomies within four weeks. The adhesive stabilized the bone graft within the first weeks and did not interfere with the consolidation of the osteotomies, or the integration of the bone graft in radiographic observations.

Reposition of the bone plate over the antrostomy in maxillary sinus augmentation: A histomorphometric study in rabbits

“…Different types of cyanoacrylate adhesives are employed in various surgical fields, including orthopedics (e.g., Foresta et al, ; Xavier & Leite, ) and oral surgery to close the wounds after apico‐ectomies, molars extractions, and mucogingival grafting (e.g., Pérez, Fernández, Márquez, & Bretaña, ). Cyanoacrylates were used with positive results in experimental studies in rabbits (Salata et al, ; Xavier & Leite, ). However, other experimental studies reported better outcomes at grafts secured with screws compared to grafts secured with cyanoacrylate adhesive (Baş et al, ; Caneva et al, ; De Santis, Silva, et al, ).…”

“…The cyanoacrylate adhesive, such as the methyl 2-cyanoacrylate or the ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, showed a good biomechanical strength for fixation of grafts (Vieira et al, 2016) and have been shown in vitro to be biocompatible (De Melo et al, 2013). Different types of cyanoacrylate adhesives are employed in various surgical fields, including orthopedics (e.g., Foresta et al, 2015;Xavier & Leite, 2015) and oral surgery to close the wounds after apico-ectomies, molars extractions, and mucogingival grafting (e.g., Pérez, Fernández, Márquez, & Bretaña, 2000). Cyanoacrylates were used with positive results in experimental studies in rabbits (Salata et al, 2014;Xavier & Leite, 2015).…”

The effects of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate and butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in the process of bone healing in rats. A controlled experimental study

“…All specimens assessed presented adhesive residue; however, in the butyl-2-cyanoacrylate group, these residues were larger in diameter. In fact, the rapid polymerization of that adhesive may originate solid nodules that act as true “foreign bodies.” These remain attached to bone tissue and adjacent musculature, perpetuating a white cell line at high levels 17 ( Table 5 ).…”

“…The medical literature leaves no doubt as to the safety and efficacy of the use of these adhesives. However, there are few reports 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 on their use in the treatment of bone lesions.…”

Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive

“…The shear strength of the device was significantly higher in the absence of adhesive (43.98 N at 30 days, and 78.55 N at 60 days), compared with the adhesive group. The lower average values observed in the adhesive group may be related to the cyanoacrylate not being metabolized, 17 thereby hindering the interlocking of newly formed bone with the titanium device 18 …”