四种不同骨替代物修复临界尺寸骨缺损的比较评价。

IF 3 Q3 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
International Journal of Biomaterials Pub Date : 2020-05-23 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/5182845
Gustavo Grossi-Oliveira, Leonardo P Faverani, Bruno Coelho Mendes, Tárik Ocon Braga Polo, Gabriel Cury Batista Mendes, Valthierre Nunes de Lima, Paulo Domingos Ribeiro Júnior, Roberta Okamoto, Osvaldo Magro-Filho
{"title":"四种不同骨替代物修复临界尺寸骨缺损的比较评价。","authors":"Gustavo Grossi-Oliveira,&nbsp;Leonardo P Faverani,&nbsp;Bruno Coelho Mendes,&nbsp;Tárik Ocon Braga Polo,&nbsp;Gabriel Cury Batista Mendes,&nbsp;Valthierre Nunes de Lima,&nbsp;Paulo Domingos Ribeiro Júnior,&nbsp;Roberta Okamoto,&nbsp;Osvaldo Magro-Filho","doi":"10.1155/2020/5182845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The immunostaining showed a decrease in Runx2 intensity in BIO after 40 days, while it increased for LBP (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The CLN showed increased OC compared to the other groups in both periods analyzed (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Therefore, CLN showed the best osteoconductive behavior in critical defects in rabbit calvaria, and BFL showed the lowest osteoconductive property.</p>","PeriodicalId":13704,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biomaterials","volume":"2020 ","pages":"5182845"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/5182845","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects.\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo Grossi-Oliveira,&nbsp;Leonardo P Faverani,&nbsp;Bruno Coelho Mendes,&nbsp;Tárik Ocon Braga Polo,&nbsp;Gabriel Cury Batista Mendes,&nbsp;Valthierre Nunes de Lima,&nbsp;Paulo Domingos Ribeiro Júnior,&nbsp;Roberta Okamoto,&nbsp;Osvaldo Magro-Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2020/5182845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The immunostaining showed a decrease in Runx2 intensity in BIO after 40 days, while it increased for LBP (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The CLN showed increased OC compared to the other groups in both periods analyzed (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Therefore, CLN showed the best osteoconductive behavior in critical defects in rabbit calvaria, and BFL showed the lowest osteoconductive property.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Biomaterials\",\"volume\":\"2020 \",\"pages\":\"5182845\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/5182845\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Biomaterials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5182845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biomaterials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5182845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究评估了四种用于骨缺损填充的生物材料的骨传导潜能。为此,24只雄性白化兔被提交到双侧8毫米颅骨骨缺损的创建。动物分为四组:牛羟基磷灰石,BIO - oss®(BIO);Lumina-Bone Porous®(LBP);Bonefill®(BFL);和同种异体材料Clonos®(CLN),并在第14天和第40天实施安乐死。对新生骨区进行组织学和组织计量学分析。对runt相关转录因子2 (Runx2)、血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)和骨钙素(OC)进行免疫组化分析。经统计学分析,两期CLN组新骨形成(NB)均高于对照组(p < 0.05)。在第14天,与LBP和BFL组相比,BIO组的NB值更高;然而,40天后,LBP组优于BIO组(p < 0.001)。免疫染色显示,40天后BIO组Runx2强度降低,LBP组Runx2强度升高(p < 0.05)。与其他组相比,CLN组在两个时间段均显示OC升高(p < 0.05)。因此,CLN在兔颅骨关键缺损中表现出最好的骨导电性,BFL表现出最低的骨导电性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Biomaterials
International Journal of Biomaterials MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
50
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信