Cargando…

Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare two types of different scaffolds in critical bone defects in rats. METHODS: Seventy male Wistar rats (280 ± 20 grams) divided into three groups: control group (CG), untreated animals; biomaterial group 1 (BG1), animals that received the scaffold implanted hydroxyapat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brassolatti, Patricia, Bossini, Paulo Sérgio, de Andrade, Ana Laura Martins, Luna, Genoveva Lourdes Flores, da Silva, Juliana Virginio, Almeida-Lopes, Luciana, Napolitano, Marcos Aurélio, de Avó, Lucimar Retto da Silva, Leal, Ângela Merice de Oliveira, Anibal, Fernanda de Freitas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34287608
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ACB360605
_version_ 1783724737518632960
author Brassolatti, Patricia
Bossini, Paulo Sérgio
de Andrade, Ana Laura Martins
Luna, Genoveva Lourdes Flores
da Silva, Juliana Virginio
Almeida-Lopes, Luciana
Napolitano, Marcos Aurélio
de Avó, Lucimar Retto da Silva
Leal, Ângela Merice de Oliveira
Anibal, Fernanda de Freitas
author_facet Brassolatti, Patricia
Bossini, Paulo Sérgio
de Andrade, Ana Laura Martins
Luna, Genoveva Lourdes Flores
da Silva, Juliana Virginio
Almeida-Lopes, Luciana
Napolitano, Marcos Aurélio
de Avó, Lucimar Retto da Silva
Leal, Ângela Merice de Oliveira
Anibal, Fernanda de Freitas
author_sort Brassolatti, Patricia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare two types of different scaffolds in critical bone defects in rats. METHODS: Seventy male Wistar rats (280 ± 20 grams) divided into three groups: control group (CG), untreated animals; biomaterial group 1 (BG1), animals that received the scaffold implanted hydroxyapatite (HA)/poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA); and biomaterial group 2 (BG2), animals that received the scaffolds HA/PLGA/Bleed. The critical bone defect was induced in the medial region of the skull calotte with the aid of an 8-mm-diameter trephine drill. The biomaterial was implanted in the form of 1.5 mm thick scaffolds, and samples were collected after 15, 30 and 60 days. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used, with the significance level of 5% (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Histology revealed morphological and structural differences of the neoformed tissue between the experimental groups. Collagen-1 (Col-1) findings are consistent with the histological ones, in which BG2 presented the highest amount of fibers in its tissue matrix in all evaluated periods. In contrast, the results of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (Rank-L) immunoexpression were higher in BG2 in the periods of 30 and 60 days, indicating an increase of the degradation of the biomaterial and the remodeling activity of the bone. CONCLUSIONS: The properties of the HA/PLGA/Bleed scaffold were superior when compared to the scaffold composed only by HA/PLGA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8291905
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82919052021-08-03 Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats Brassolatti, Patricia Bossini, Paulo Sérgio de Andrade, Ana Laura Martins Luna, Genoveva Lourdes Flores da Silva, Juliana Virginio Almeida-Lopes, Luciana Napolitano, Marcos Aurélio de Avó, Lucimar Retto da Silva Leal, Ângela Merice de Oliveira Anibal, Fernanda de Freitas Acta Cir Bras Original Article PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare two types of different scaffolds in critical bone defects in rats. METHODS: Seventy male Wistar rats (280 ± 20 grams) divided into three groups: control group (CG), untreated animals; biomaterial group 1 (BG1), animals that received the scaffold implanted hydroxyapatite (HA)/poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA); and biomaterial group 2 (BG2), animals that received the scaffolds HA/PLGA/Bleed. The critical bone defect was induced in the medial region of the skull calotte with the aid of an 8-mm-diameter trephine drill. The biomaterial was implanted in the form of 1.5 mm thick scaffolds, and samples were collected after 15, 30 and 60 days. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used, with the significance level of 5% (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Histology revealed morphological and structural differences of the neoformed tissue between the experimental groups. Collagen-1 (Col-1) findings are consistent with the histological ones, in which BG2 presented the highest amount of fibers in its tissue matrix in all evaluated periods. In contrast, the results of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (Rank-L) immunoexpression were higher in BG2 in the periods of 30 and 60 days, indicating an increase of the degradation of the biomaterial and the remodeling activity of the bone. CONCLUSIONS: The properties of the HA/PLGA/Bleed scaffold were superior when compared to the scaffold composed only by HA/PLGA. Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia 2021-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8291905/ /pubmed/34287608 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ACB360605 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Brassolatti, Patricia
Bossini, Paulo Sérgio
de Andrade, Ana Laura Martins
Luna, Genoveva Lourdes Flores
da Silva, Juliana Virginio
Almeida-Lopes, Luciana
Napolitano, Marcos Aurélio
de Avó, Lucimar Retto da Silva
Leal, Ângela Merice de Oliveira
Anibal, Fernanda de Freitas
Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title_full Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title_fullStr Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title_short Comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
title_sort comparison of two different biomaterials in the bone regeneration (15, 30 and 60 days) of critical defects in rats
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34287608
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ACB360605
work_keys_str_mv AT brassolattipatricia comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT bossinipaulosergio comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT deandradeanalauramartins comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT lunagenovevalourdesflores comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT dasilvajulianavirginio comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT almeidalopesluciana comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT napolitanomarcosaurelio comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT deavolucimarrettodasilva comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT lealangelamericedeoliveira comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats
AT anibalfernandadefreitas comparisonoftwodifferentbiomaterialsintheboneregeneration1530and60daysofcriticaldefectsinrats