对两种不同临床前模型进行组织形态计量学比较,以评估移植区域的骨修复情况

Julia Raulino Lima, P. Soares, Lucas De Sousa Goulart Pereira, Leidys Rodríguez Perdomo, S. C. Pigossi, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira
{"title":"对两种不同临床前模型进行组织形态计量学比较,以评估移植区域的骨修复情况","authors":"Julia Raulino Lima, P. Soares, Lucas De Sousa Goulart Pereira, Leidys Rodríguez Perdomo, S. C. Pigossi, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira","doi":"10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8673937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study was performed to compare two different rat defect models (critical calvaria defects versus guided bone regeneration in the mandibular ramus) used to evaluate bone repair in grafted areas. Methods: A total of 12 rats were allocated in two groups according the experimental model used to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas: a critical sized-calvaria defect of 5 mm filled with bone graft (n=6) and a mandibular ramus filled with the bone graft associated with a Teflon dome-shaped membrane (n=6). Both groups were grafted with deproteinized bovine bone graft. After 60 days, the animals were euthanized and the samples obtained were submitted to histomorphometry analysis to evaluate the relative amount of bone, remaining bone substitute, and soft tissue within the grafted areas. Results: No differences were observed between the preclinical models evaluated in relation to the amount of bone tissue formation (19.93 ± 4.55% in calvaria vs. 21.00 ± 8.20% in mandible). However, there was a smaller amount of soft tissue (43.20 ± 10.97% vs. 57.79 ± 7.61 %; p<0.01) and a greater amount of bone substitute remaining (35.80 ± 5.52% vs. 22.28 ± 4.36 %; p<0.05) in the grafted areas in the mandible compared to calvaria defect. Conclusion: Preclinical models for the analysis of bone repair in grafted areas in the mandible and critical sized-calvaria defects showed different responses in relation to the amount of soft tissue and bone substitute remnants.","PeriodicalId":504767,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Histomorphometric comparison of two different preclinical models to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas\",\"authors\":\"Julia Raulino Lima, P. Soares, Lucas De Sousa Goulart Pereira, Leidys Rodríguez Perdomo, S. C. Pigossi, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8673937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study was performed to compare two different rat defect models (critical calvaria defects versus guided bone regeneration in the mandibular ramus) used to evaluate bone repair in grafted areas. Methods: A total of 12 rats were allocated in two groups according the experimental model used to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas: a critical sized-calvaria defect of 5 mm filled with bone graft (n=6) and a mandibular ramus filled with the bone graft associated with a Teflon dome-shaped membrane (n=6). Both groups were grafted with deproteinized bovine bone graft. After 60 days, the animals were euthanized and the samples obtained were submitted to histomorphometry analysis to evaluate the relative amount of bone, remaining bone substitute, and soft tissue within the grafted areas. Results: No differences were observed between the preclinical models evaluated in relation to the amount of bone tissue formation (19.93 ± 4.55% in calvaria vs. 21.00 ± 8.20% in mandible). However, there was a smaller amount of soft tissue (43.20 ± 10.97% vs. 57.79 ± 7.61 %; p<0.01) and a greater amount of bone substitute remaining (35.80 ± 5.52% vs. 22.28 ± 4.36 %; p<0.05) in the grafted areas in the mandible compared to calvaria defect. Conclusion: Preclinical models for the analysis of bone repair in grafted areas in the mandible and critical sized-calvaria defects showed different responses in relation to the amount of soft tissue and bone substitute remnants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8673937\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8673937","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较两种不同的大鼠缺损模型(临界小腿缺损与下颌骨横梁引导骨再生),以评估移植区域的骨修复情况。方法:根据用于评估移植区域骨修复的实验模型,将总共 12 只大鼠分为两组:用植骨填充 5 毫米大小的临界腓肠肌缺损(6 只)和用与特氟龙圆顶膜相关的植骨填充下颌骨横梁(6 只)。两组均采用去蛋白牛骨移植。60 天后,动物被安乐死,获得的样本被送去进行组织形态学分析,以评估移植区域内骨、剩余骨替代物和软组织的相对数量。结果所评估的临床前模型在骨组织形成量方面没有差异(小腿骨为 19.93 ± 4.55%,下颌骨为 21.00 ± 8.20%)。不过,与腓骨缺损相比,下颌骨移植区域的软组织数量较少(43.20 ± 10.97% vs. 57.79 ± 7.61%;p<0.01),而剩余的骨替代物数量较多(35.80 ± 5.52% vs. 22.28 ± 4.36%;p<0.05)。结论用于分析下颌骨移植区和临界大小颅骨缺损区骨修复情况的临床前模型在软组织和骨替代物残留量方面表现出不同的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Histomorphometric comparison of two different preclinical models to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas
Aim: This study was performed to compare two different rat defect models (critical calvaria defects versus guided bone regeneration in the mandibular ramus) used to evaluate bone repair in grafted areas. Methods: A total of 12 rats were allocated in two groups according the experimental model used to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas: a critical sized-calvaria defect of 5 mm filled with bone graft (n=6) and a mandibular ramus filled with the bone graft associated with a Teflon dome-shaped membrane (n=6). Both groups were grafted with deproteinized bovine bone graft. After 60 days, the animals were euthanized and the samples obtained were submitted to histomorphometry analysis to evaluate the relative amount of bone, remaining bone substitute, and soft tissue within the grafted areas. Results: No differences were observed between the preclinical models evaluated in relation to the amount of bone tissue formation (19.93 ± 4.55% in calvaria vs. 21.00 ± 8.20% in mandible). However, there was a smaller amount of soft tissue (43.20 ± 10.97% vs. 57.79 ± 7.61 %; p<0.01) and a greater amount of bone substitute remaining (35.80 ± 5.52% vs. 22.28 ± 4.36 %; p<0.05) in the grafted areas in the mandible compared to calvaria defect. Conclusion: Preclinical models for the analysis of bone repair in grafted areas in the mandible and critical sized-calvaria defects showed different responses in relation to the amount of soft tissue and bone substitute remnants.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of change in knowledge, attitude, and practice of medical students towards early childhood oral health following educational intervention Knowledge and conduct of dental students about mouthwash prior to dental procedures amid the COVID-19 pandemic Risk factors for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in menopausal women Accuracy of the integrated electronic apex locator in locating simulated perforation under various irrigating solutions in an in vitro study Histomorphometric comparison of two different preclinical models to evaluate the bone repair in grafted areas
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1