Cargando…

Comparative study of bone regeneration using fibrin sealant with xenograft in rabbit sinus: pilot study

BACKGROUND: Stability of the grafted bone volume is one of the important factors to the success of alveolar bone grafts. For this, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or fibrin sealant is mixed with the bone graft material. Bio-Oss® is a protein-free bovine mineral commonly used in bone graft procedures. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choi, Won-Hyuk, Kim, Yong-Deok, Song, Jae-Min, Shin, Sang-Hun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Singapore 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7876188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33566201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-021-00290-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Stability of the grafted bone volume is one of the important factors to the success of alveolar bone grafts. For this, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or fibrin sealant is mixed with the bone graft material. Bio-Oss® is a protein-free bovine mineral commonly used in bone graft procedures. The grafting particles are commonly combined with a standard fibrin sealant (Tisseel®) to fabricate a plastic implantable product. The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the efficacy of fibrin sealant (Tisseel®) in bone regeneration performance in a rabbit maxillary sinus model. METHODS: A total of five 3.5 kg weight New Zealand white rabbits were used for the study. After elevating the sinus membrane in both maxillary sinus cavities, Bio-Oss® mixed with normal saline (group 1) was filled into the right side, and Tisseel® mixed Bio-Oss® (group 2) was inserted into the other side. The bone mineral density and bone volume were analyzed with microscopic computed tomography (micro-CT) and histomorphometric 12 weeks after application. RESULTS: Histologically, new bone formation rate was 14.8%, and grafted bone rate was 70.5% in group 1. In group 2, they were 18.5% and 60.4%, respectively. According to micro-CT analysis, bone mineral density (mg/cm(3), BMD) was 2.5% larger in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that, although the difference in the bone formation between group 1 and group 2 appears to be insignificant, group 2 had an advantage in using smaller amount of bone substances to achieve the reliable bone formation.