Cargando…

Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study

This study evaluated osseointegration in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and biphasic ceramic based on hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP) in rat tibias. Noncritical bone defects were made in the tibias of 28 rats that were randomly assigned to 2 groups: DBB: DBB...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende, Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo, Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici, Marcantonio, Elcio, de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9645139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35262548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204378
_version_ 1784826901876965376
author de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende
Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo
Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici
Marcantonio, Elcio
de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
author_facet de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende
Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo
Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici
Marcantonio, Elcio
de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
author_sort de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende
collection PubMed
description This study evaluated osseointegration in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and biphasic ceramic based on hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP) in rat tibias. Noncritical bone defects were made in the tibias of 28 rats that were randomly assigned to 2 groups: DBB: DBB-filled defects and HA/TCP: HA/TCP-filled defects. Bone defects were made in the tibias bilaterally and filled with biomaterials. After 60 days, the implants were inserted, and the animals were euthanized 15 and 45 days after the implants were installed. Osseointegration was evaluated by biomechanical, microtomographic and histometric analysis. Implants installed in the defects filled with DBB presented higher removal torque forces (2.33 ± 0.51 Ncm vs. 1.50 ± 0.54 Ncm) and mineralized tissue volume around implants at 15 days (34.96 ± 3.68 % vs. 25.61 ± 2.95 %) and greater bone-implant contact (20.87 ± 8.28 % vs. 11.52 ± 7.42 %) and bone area within implant threads (26.83 ± 12.35 % vs. 11.98 ± 7.56 %) at 45 days compared to the measurements of implants in areas grafted with HA/TCP. Implants installed in defects in areas grafted with DBB had a better osseointegration pattern than implants placed in defects in areas grafted with HA/TCP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9645139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96451392022-11-14 Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici Marcantonio, Elcio de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes Braz Dent J Article This study evaluated osseointegration in areas grafted with deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and biphasic ceramic based on hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP) in rat tibias. Noncritical bone defects were made in the tibias of 28 rats that were randomly assigned to 2 groups: DBB: DBB-filled defects and HA/TCP: HA/TCP-filled defects. Bone defects were made in the tibias bilaterally and filled with biomaterials. After 60 days, the implants were inserted, and the animals were euthanized 15 and 45 days after the implants were installed. Osseointegration was evaluated by biomechanical, microtomographic and histometric analysis. Implants installed in the defects filled with DBB presented higher removal torque forces (2.33 ± 0.51 Ncm vs. 1.50 ± 0.54 Ncm) and mineralized tissue volume around implants at 15 days (34.96 ± 3.68 % vs. 25.61 ± 2.95 %) and greater bone-implant contact (20.87 ± 8.28 % vs. 11.52 ± 7.42 %) and bone area within implant threads (26.83 ± 12.35 % vs. 11.98 ± 7.56 %) at 45 days compared to the measurements of implants in areas grafted with HA/TCP. Implants installed in defects in areas grafted with DBB had a better osseointegration pattern than implants placed in defects in areas grafted with HA/TCP. Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9645139/ /pubmed/35262548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204378 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
spellingShingle Article
de Oliveira, Vithor Xavier Resende
Pinotti, Felipe Eduardo
Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici
Marcantonio, Elcio
de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title_full Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title_fullStr Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title_short Comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. Preclinical study
title_sort comparison of osseointegration in areas grafted with different osteoconductive biomaterials. preclinical study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9645139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35262548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204378
work_keys_str_mv AT deoliveiravithorxavierresende comparisonofosseointegrationinareasgraftedwithdifferentosteoconductivebiomaterialspreclinicalstudy
AT pinottifelipeeduardo comparisonofosseointegrationinareasgraftedwithdifferentosteoconductivebiomaterialspreclinicalstudy
AT marcantoniorosemaryadrianachierici comparisonofosseointegrationinareasgraftedwithdifferentosteoconductivebiomaterialspreclinicalstudy
AT marcantonioelcio comparisonofosseointegrationinareasgraftedwithdifferentosteoconductivebiomaterialspreclinicalstudy
AT deoliveiraguilhermejosepimentellopes comparisonofosseointegrationinareasgraftedwithdifferentosteoconductivebiomaterialspreclinicalstudy