4.5 Article

Bone substitute as an on-lay graft on rat tibia

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 424-429

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01875.x

Keywords

animal experiments; bone substitutes; histopathology; host mechanisms

Funding

  1. Swedish Medical Research Council [09509]
  2. Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University
  3. Medical Faculty, Lund University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To investigate the capacity of Cerament (R), an injectable bone substitute, to guide bone generation from a cortical surface. Materials and method Cerament (R) was applied to the cortical surface of rat tibiae and investigated histologically after 3, 6 and 12 weeks, using a procedure similar to that performed in sham-operated rats. Results In both groups, the thickness of the bone cortex increased significantly from 473 +/- 58 mu m (mean +/- SD) at day 0 to 1193 +/- 255 mu m (Cerament (R)) and 942 +/- 323 mu m (sham) after 3 weeks. In the Cerament (R) group, the new bone thickness remained constant (1258 +/- 288 mu m) until the end of the experiment at 12 weeks, while the sham group demonstrated a return to initial cortical thickness (591 +/- 73 mu m) at 12 weeks. The newly formed bone in the Cerament (R) group was highly trabecular after 3 weeks but attained a normal trabecular structure of the cortex after 12 weeks. Conclusion Cerament (R) may guide bone generation from an intact cortical bone surface. Although bone remodeling speed may differ between rats and humans, our study indicates that Cerament (R) may become a useful alternative to autologous bone, both to fill defects and to increase bone volume by cortical augmentation. To cite this article:Truedsson A, Wang J-S, Lindberg P, Gordh M, Sunzel B, Warfvinge G. Bone substitute as an on-lay graft on rat tibia. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 424-429.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01875.x.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available