Cargando…

Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects

This study evaluated the osteoconductive potential of four biomaterials used to fill bone defects. For this, 24 male Albino rabbits were submitted to the creation of a bilateral 8 mm calvarial bone defect. The animals were divided into four groups—bovine hydroxyapatite, Bio-Oss® (BIO); Lumina-Bone P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo, Faverani, Leonardo P., Mendes, Bruno Coelho, Braga Polo, Tárik Ocon, Batista Mendes, Gabriel Cury, de Lima, Valthierre Nunes, Ribeiro Júnior, Paulo Domingos, Okamoto, Roberta, Magro-Filho, Osvaldo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32528537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5182845
_version_ 1783540662608592896
author Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Mendes, Bruno Coelho
Braga Polo, Tárik Ocon
Batista Mendes, Gabriel Cury
de Lima, Valthierre Nunes
Ribeiro Júnior, Paulo Domingos
Okamoto, Roberta
Magro-Filho, Osvaldo
author_facet Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Mendes, Bruno Coelho
Braga Polo, Tárik Ocon
Batista Mendes, Gabriel Cury
de Lima, Valthierre Nunes
Ribeiro Júnior, Paulo Domingos
Okamoto, Roberta
Magro-Filho, Osvaldo
author_sort Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo
collection PubMed
description This study evaluated the osteoconductive potential of four biomaterials used to fill bone defects. For this, 24 male Albino rabbits were submitted to the creation of a bilateral 8 mm calvarial bone defect. The animals were divided into four groups—bovine hydroxyapatite, Bio-Oss® (BIO); Lumina-Bone Porous® (LBP); Bonefill® (BFL); and an alloplastic material, Clonos® (CLN)—and were euthanized at 14 and 40 days. The samples were subjected to histological and histometric analysis for newly formed bone area. Immunohistochemical analysis for Runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and osteocalcin (OC) was performed. After statistical analysis, the CLN group showed greater new bone formation (NB) in both periods analyzed (p < 0.05). At 14 days, the NB showed greater values in BIO in relation to LBP and BFL groups; however, after 40 days, the LBP group surpassed the results of BIO (p < 0.001). The immunostaining showed a decrease in Runx2 intensity in BIO after 40 days, while it increased for LBP (p < 0.05). The CLN showed increased OC compared to the other groups in both periods analyzed (p < 0.05). Therefore, CLN showed the best osteoconductive behavior in critical defects in rabbit calvaria, and BFL showed the lowest osteoconductive property.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7262656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72626562020-06-10 Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo Faverani, Leonardo P. Mendes, Bruno Coelho Braga Polo, Tárik Ocon Batista Mendes, Gabriel Cury de Lima, Valthierre Nunes Ribeiro Júnior, Paulo Domingos Okamoto, Roberta Magro-Filho, Osvaldo Int J Biomater Research Article This study evaluated the osteoconductive potential of four biomaterials used to fill bone defects. For this, 24 male Albino rabbits were submitted to the creation of a bilateral 8 mm calvarial bone defect. The animals were divided into four groups—bovine hydroxyapatite, Bio-Oss® (BIO); Lumina-Bone Porous® (LBP); Bonefill® (BFL); and an alloplastic material, Clonos® (CLN)—and were euthanized at 14 and 40 days. The samples were subjected to histological and histometric analysis for newly formed bone area. Immunohistochemical analysis for Runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and osteocalcin (OC) was performed. After statistical analysis, the CLN group showed greater new bone formation (NB) in both periods analyzed (p < 0.05). At 14 days, the NB showed greater values in BIO in relation to LBP and BFL groups; however, after 40 days, the LBP group surpassed the results of BIO (p < 0.001). The immunostaining showed a decrease in Runx2 intensity in BIO after 40 days, while it increased for LBP (p < 0.05). The CLN showed increased OC compared to the other groups in both periods analyzed (p < 0.05). Therefore, CLN showed the best osteoconductive behavior in critical defects in rabbit calvaria, and BFL showed the lowest osteoconductive property. Hindawi 2020-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7262656/ /pubmed/32528537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5182845 Text en Copyright © 2020 Gustavo Grossi-Oliveira et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grossi-Oliveira, Gustavo
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Mendes, Bruno Coelho
Braga Polo, Tárik Ocon
Batista Mendes, Gabriel Cury
de Lima, Valthierre Nunes
Ribeiro Júnior, Paulo Domingos
Okamoto, Roberta
Magro-Filho, Osvaldo
Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
title_sort comparative evaluation of bone repair with four different bone substitutes in critical size defects
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32528537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/5182845
work_keys_str_mv AT grossioliveiragustavo comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT faveranileonardop comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT mendesbrunocoelho comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT bragapolotarikocon comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT batistamendesgabrielcury comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT delimavalthierrenunes comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT ribeirojuniorpaulodomingos comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT okamotoroberta comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects
AT magrofilhoosvaldo comparativeevaluationofbonerepairwithfourdifferentbonesubstitutesincriticalsizedefects