Histological, Histomorphometric, and Osteogenesis Comparative Study of a Novel Fabricated Nanocomposite Membrane versus a Cytoplast Membrane
Abbas Haghighat, DDS, OMFS1, Salman Shakeri, DDS2, Mehdi Mehdikhani, PhD3,∗,'Correspondence information about the author PhD Mehdi MehdikhaniEmail the author PhD Mehdi MehdikhaniEmail the author PhD Mehdi Mehdikhani, Shiva Soltani Dehnavi, MS4, Ardeshir Talebi, PhD5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.05.012
hideArticle Info
Publication History
Published online: May 27, 2019
Accepted: May 21, 2019
Received in revised form: May 21, 2019
Received: December 29, 2018
Abstract
Full Text
Images
References
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed at comparing the in vivo efficacy of a novel synthesized polycaprolactone (PCL)/ polyethylene glycol (PEG)/ bioactive glass (BG) (PCL) nanocomposite membrane versus a Cytoplast (Cy) membrane in terms of the average percentage of new bone formation and inflammation level.
Materials and Methods
In this interventional animal study, 12 male New Zealand rabbits were tested. In parietal bone of the rabbits, 24 defects were prepared (2 defects for each rabbit) which were divided into three equal groups (Cy, PCL, and the control (C)). Each animal’s calvarial bone was prepared for the histologic and histomorphometric survey. The amount of regenerated bone (length, area, and percentage), necrosis rate, the amounts of fibrosis (fibrosis plus and percent), and inflammation in standard defects (CSD) of parietal bone of the rabbits were examined and compared after ten weeks.
Results
In conclusion, there was a significant difference between Cy and PCL groups regarding the mean area and thickness of the bone. There was also a significant difference concerning bone length, area, and percentage formed between PCL and the control groups. Regarding the rate of fibrous tissue formation, a significant difference existed between PCL group and the control group. The results showed the influence of PCL membrane on generating more bone and less fibrous tissue. Meanwhile, in all three groups, negligible inflammation and no necrosis were observed.
Conclusions
According to the results, the conclusion was drawn that combining PCL, PEG, and BGs would be promising for bone regeneration in jaws’ defects and around dental implants together with oral and maxillofacial defects.
Keywords:
Nanocomposite Membrane, Cytoplast Membrane, In vivo, Histologic, Osteogenesis
Abbas Haghighat, DDS, OMFS1, Salman Shakeri, DDS2, Mehdi Mehdikhani, PhD3,∗,'Correspondence information about the author PhD Mehdi MehdikhaniEmail the author PhD Mehdi MehdikhaniEmail the author PhD Mehdi Mehdikhani, Shiva Soltani Dehnavi, MS4, Ardeshir Talebi, PhD5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.05.012
hideArticle Info
Publication History
Published online: May 27, 2019
Accepted: May 21, 2019
Received in revised form: May 21, 2019
Received: December 29, 2018
Abstract
Full Text
Images
References
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed at comparing the in vivo efficacy of a novel synthesized polycaprolactone (PCL)/ polyethylene glycol (PEG)/ bioactive glass (BG) (PCL) nanocomposite membrane versus a Cytoplast (Cy) membrane in terms of the average percentage of new bone formation and inflammation level.
Materials and Methods
In this interventional animal study, 12 male New Zealand rabbits were tested. In parietal bone of the rabbits, 24 defects were prepared (2 defects for each rabbit) which were divided into three equal groups (Cy, PCL, and the control (C)). Each animal’s calvarial bone was prepared for the histologic and histomorphometric survey. The amount of regenerated bone (length, area, and percentage), necrosis rate, the amounts of fibrosis (fibrosis plus and percent), and inflammation in standard defects (CSD) of parietal bone of the rabbits were examined and compared after ten weeks.
Results
In conclusion, there was a significant difference between Cy and PCL groups regarding the mean area and thickness of the bone. There was also a significant difference concerning bone length, area, and percentage formed between PCL and the control groups. Regarding the rate of fibrous tissue formation, a significant difference existed between PCL group and the control group. The results showed the influence of PCL membrane on generating more bone and less fibrous tissue. Meanwhile, in all three groups, negligible inflammation and no necrosis were observed.
Conclusions
According to the results, the conclusion was drawn that combining PCL, PEG, and BGs would be promising for bone regeneration in jaws’ defects and around dental implants together with oral and maxillofacial defects.
Keywords:
Nanocomposite Membrane, Cytoplast Membrane, In vivo, Histologic, Osteogenesis
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου