Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorSusin, Cristianopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jaebumpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFiorini, Tiagopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorKoo, Ki-Taept_BR
dc.contributor.authorSchüpbach, Peterpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorStadler, Amanda Fingerpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorWikesjö, Ulf Mept_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-30T03:23:59Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2022pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn2218-273Xpt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/256515pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground: Natural (bovine-/equine-/porcine-derived) or synthetic hydroxyapatite (HA) biomaterials appear to be the preferred technologies among clinicians for bone augmentation procedures in preparation for implant dentistry. The aim of this study was to screen candidate HA biomaterials intended for alveolar ridge augmentation relative to their potential to support local bone formation/maturation and to assess biomaterial resorption using a routine critical-size rat calvaria defect model. Methods: Eighty adult male Sprague Dawley outbred rats obtained from a approvedbreeder, randomized into groups of ten, were used. The calvaria defects (ø8 mm) either received sham surgery (empty control), Bio-Oss (bovine HA/reference control), or candidate biomaterials including bovine HA (Cerabone, DirectOss, 403Z013), and bovine (403Z014) or synthetic HA/ß-TCP (Reprobone, Ceraball) constructs. An 8 wk healing interval was used to capture the biomaterials’ resolution. Results: All biomaterials displayed biocompatibility. Strict HA biomaterials showed limited, if any, signs of biodegradation/resorption, with the biomaterial area fraction ranging from 22% to 42%. Synthetic HA/ß-TCP constructs showed limited evidence of biodegradation/erosion (biomaterial area fraction ≈30%). Mean linear defect closure in the sham-surgery control approximated 40%. Mean linear defect closure for the Bio-Oss reference control approximated 18% compared with 15–35% for the candidate biomaterials without significant differences between the controls and candidate biomaterials. Conclusions: None of the candidate HA biomaterials supported local bone formation/maturation beyond the native regenerative potential of this rodent model, pointing to their limitations for regenerative procedures. Biocompatibility and biomaterial dimensional stability could suggest their potential utility as long-term defect fillers.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBiomolecules. Basel. Vol. 12, n. 11 (2022), 1677, 10 p.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectBiocompatible materialsen
dc.subjectSubstitutos ósseospt_BR
dc.subjectDurapatitapt_BR
dc.subjectBoneen
dc.subjectAlveolar bone graftingen
dc.titleScreening of hydroxyapatite biomaterials for alveolar augmentation using a rat calvaria critical-size defect model : bone formation/maturation and biomaterials resolutionpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001163857pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples