Cargando…

Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model

The purpose of this study was to compare the osteogenic potential of a synthetic and a demineralized bone matrix (DBM) putty using a cranial defect model in New Zealand white rabbits. Paired, bilateral critical-size defects (10 mm) were prepared in the frontal bones of 12 rabbits and filled with eit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schallenberger, Mark A., Rossmeier, Kerri, Lovick, Helena M., Meyer, Todd R., Aberman, Harold M., Juda, Gregory A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Little, Brown And Company 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3958491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24577306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000610
_version_ 1782307881322807296
author Schallenberger, Mark A.
Rossmeier, Kerri
Lovick, Helena M.
Meyer, Todd R.
Aberman, Harold M.
Juda, Gregory A.
author_facet Schallenberger, Mark A.
Rossmeier, Kerri
Lovick, Helena M.
Meyer, Todd R.
Aberman, Harold M.
Juda, Gregory A.
author_sort Schallenberger, Mark A.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare the osteogenic potential of a synthetic and a demineralized bone matrix (DBM) putty using a cranial defect model in New Zealand white rabbits. Paired, bilateral critical-size defects (10 mm) were prepared in the frontal bones of 12 rabbits and filled with either OsteoSelect DBM Putty or NovaBone calcium-phosphosilicate putty. At days 43 and 91, 6 rabbits were killed and examined via semiquantitative histology and quantitative histomorphometry. Defects filled with the DBM putty were histologically associated with less inflammation and fibrous tissue in the defect and more new bone than the synthetic counterpart at both time points. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the defects filled with DBM putty were associated with significantly more bone formation at day 43 (70.7% vs 40.7%, P = 0.043) and at day 91 (70.4% vs 39.9%, P = 0.0044). The amount of residual implant was similar for both test groups at each time point.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3958491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Little, Brown And Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39584912014-03-20 Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model Schallenberger, Mark A. Rossmeier, Kerri Lovick, Helena M. Meyer, Todd R. Aberman, Harold M. Juda, Gregory A. J Craniofac Surg Scientific Foundations The purpose of this study was to compare the osteogenic potential of a synthetic and a demineralized bone matrix (DBM) putty using a cranial defect model in New Zealand white rabbits. Paired, bilateral critical-size defects (10 mm) were prepared in the frontal bones of 12 rabbits and filled with either OsteoSelect DBM Putty or NovaBone calcium-phosphosilicate putty. At days 43 and 91, 6 rabbits were killed and examined via semiquantitative histology and quantitative histomorphometry. Defects filled with the DBM putty were histologically associated with less inflammation and fibrous tissue in the defect and more new bone than the synthetic counterpart at both time points. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the defects filled with DBM putty were associated with significantly more bone formation at day 43 (70.7% vs 40.7%, P = 0.043) and at day 91 (70.4% vs 39.9%, P = 0.0044). The amount of residual implant was similar for both test groups at each time point. Little, Brown And Company 2014-03 2014-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3958491/ /pubmed/24577306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000610 Text en Copyright © 2014 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
spellingShingle Scientific Foundations
Schallenberger, Mark A.
Rossmeier, Kerri
Lovick, Helena M.
Meyer, Todd R.
Aberman, Harold M.
Juda, Gregory A.
Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title_full Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title_fullStr Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title_short Comparison of the Osteogenic Potential of OsteoSelect Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty to NovaBone Calcium-Phosphosilicate Synthetic Putty in a Cranial Defect Model
title_sort comparison of the osteogenic potential of osteoselect demineralized bone matrix putty to novabone calcium-phosphosilicate synthetic putty in a cranial defect model
topic Scientific Foundations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3958491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24577306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000610
work_keys_str_mv AT schallenbergermarka comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel
AT rossmeierkerri comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel
AT lovickhelenam comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel
AT meyertoddr comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel
AT abermanharoldm comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel
AT judagregorya comparisonoftheosteogenicpotentialofosteoselectdemineralizedbonematrixputtytonovabonecalciumphosphosilicatesyntheticputtyinacranialdefectmodel