比较三种不同来源的异种移植物在临界大小骨缺损中的愈合过程:体内研究

Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry Pub Date : 2024-03-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.34172/japid.2024.004
Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Aida Kheiri, Shiva Esfandiari
{"title":"比较三种不同来源的异种移植物在临界大小骨缺损中的愈合过程:体内研究","authors":"Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Aida Kheiri, Shiva Esfandiari","doi":"10.34172/japid.2024.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Xenograft bone substitutes can be obtained from different animals and processed using various methods. The present in vivo study evaluated bone regeneration after using three types of xenografts with different sources in critical-sized bone defects in rabbit calvaria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four 8-mm defects were created in calvaria of 14 New Zealand and white male rabbits. Three out of four defects were filled with xenografts of bovine, camel, and ostrich sources. The fourth defect was left unfilled as the control group. Seven rabbits were sacrificed after eight weeks and seven others after 12 weeks. Micro-CT imaging and histologic evaluation were further performed on dissected calvarias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 8 and 12 weeks, the highest and lowest percentages of new bone formation were observed in the camel (27.71% and 41.92%) and control (11.33% and 15.96%) groups, respectively. In the case of residual material, the ostrich group had the most value after eight weeks (53%), while after 12 weeks, it was highest in the camel group (37%). Micro-CT findings were consistent with histologic results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although all three xenografts can be good choices for treating bone defects, camel-sourced xenograft seemed to be better than the other two groups. The origin and processing procedures of xenografts affected their final characteristics, which should be considered for clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":73584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","volume":"16 1","pages":"22-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11252156/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the healing process of xenografts with three different sources in critical-size bone defects: An in vivo study.\",\"authors\":\"Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Aida Kheiri, Shiva Esfandiari\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/japid.2024.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Xenograft bone substitutes can be obtained from different animals and processed using various methods. The present in vivo study evaluated bone regeneration after using three types of xenografts with different sources in critical-sized bone defects in rabbit calvaria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four 8-mm defects were created in calvaria of 14 New Zealand and white male rabbits. Three out of four defects were filled with xenografts of bovine, camel, and ostrich sources. The fourth defect was left unfilled as the control group. Seven rabbits were sacrificed after eight weeks and seven others after 12 weeks. Micro-CT imaging and histologic evaluation were further performed on dissected calvarias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 8 and 12 weeks, the highest and lowest percentages of new bone formation were observed in the camel (27.71% and 41.92%) and control (11.33% and 15.96%) groups, respectively. In the case of residual material, the ostrich group had the most value after eight weeks (53%), while after 12 weeks, it was highest in the camel group (37%). Micro-CT findings were consistent with histologic results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although all three xenografts can be good choices for treating bone defects, camel-sourced xenograft seemed to be better than the other two groups. The origin and processing procedures of xenografts affected their final characteristics, which should be considered for clinical use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"22-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11252156/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:异种移植骨替代物可从不同的动物身上获得,并采用不同的方法进行处理。本体内研究评估了在兔小腿临界大小骨缺损中使用三种不同来源的异种移植物后的骨再生情况:在14只新西兰和白色雄兔的腓肠肌上创建了4个8毫米的缺损。四块缺损中的三块分别用牛、骆驼和鸵鸟的异种移植物填充。第四个缺损未填充,作为对照组。七只兔子在八周后被处死,另外七只在十二周后被处死。对解剖后的小腿进一步进行了显微 CT 成像和组织学评估:结果:8 周和 12 周后,骆驼组(27.71% 和 41.92%)和对照组(11.33% 和 15.96%)的新骨形成率分别最高和最低。就残留材料而言,鸵鸟组在 8 周后的残留值最高(53%),而在 12 周后,骆驼组的残留值最高(37%)。显微 CT 结果与组织学结果一致:结论:虽然三种异种移植物都能很好地治疗骨缺损,但骆驼来源的异种移植物似乎优于其他两组。异种移植物的来源和加工程序会影响其最终特性,临床使用时应加以考虑。
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
Comparison of the healing process of xenografts with three different sources in critical-size bone defects: An in vivo study.

Background: Xenograft bone substitutes can be obtained from different animals and processed using various methods. The present in vivo study evaluated bone regeneration after using three types of xenografts with different sources in critical-sized bone defects in rabbit calvaria.

Methods: Four 8-mm defects were created in calvaria of 14 New Zealand and white male rabbits. Three out of four defects were filled with xenografts of bovine, camel, and ostrich sources. The fourth defect was left unfilled as the control group. Seven rabbits were sacrificed after eight weeks and seven others after 12 weeks. Micro-CT imaging and histologic evaluation were further performed on dissected calvarias.

Results: After 8 and 12 weeks, the highest and lowest percentages of new bone formation were observed in the camel (27.71% and 41.92%) and control (11.33% and 15.96%) groups, respectively. In the case of residual material, the ostrich group had the most value after eight weeks (53%), while after 12 weeks, it was highest in the camel group (37%). Micro-CT findings were consistent with histologic results.

Conclusion: Although all three xenografts can be good choices for treating bone defects, camel-sourced xenograft seemed to be better than the other two groups. The origin and processing procedures of xenografts affected their final characteristics, which should be considered for clinical use.

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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deep margin elevation; Indications and periodontal considerations. Effect of orthodontic forced eruption for implant site development in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review of clinical data. Beneficial effects of cranberry juice enriched with omega-3 fatty acids in patients with type 2 diabetic and periodontal disease: A randomized pilot clinical trial. Comparison of the effect of albumin with platelet-rich fibrin (Alb-PRF) gel and hyaluronic acid gel injection on interdental papilla reconstruction: A randomized clinical trial. Effect of atorvastatin gel in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
×
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