English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A current surgical strategies; including autogenous grafts or alloplastic materials applied for large bone defect repair are successful in a wide range, however, they have some significant deficiencies. Particularly, limited availability with donor site morbidity in the use of autogenous grafts, and risk of disease transmission, rejection, lack of osteoinductivity and eventual graft lysis in the use of alloplastic materials have been recorded (Fang et al., 2006; Almaiman et al., 2013). At this regards, biomaterials that are safe, strongly incorporate with bone tissue and much osteoinductivity are really essential as a clinical alternative to osseous grafts. Silicate bioactive glass (BG) especially 45S5 particulate (Hench, 1998) is resorbable bioactive synthetic ceramic that has both potentiality to form strong incorporation with osseous tissue and antimicrobial effect (Abdollahi et al., 2013; Rivadeneira et al., 2013). Additionally, it has been shown to lend Abstract | This study was aimed to verify the individual or combining effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and unique biodegradable silicate 45S5 bioactive glass (BG) scaffold on regeneration of metaphyseal tibia defect in a rabbit model. Thirty–six animals were allocated into three groups (n=12 each). In each group, during surgery, right-sided defects were filled with BG, PRP or BG/PRP (1:1), while left-sided defects were served as a control. To visualize and trace defects healing, macroscopic, radiologic and histological examinations were performed at different time points. Bone density/radiopacity and macroscopic (defect size) values were collected and analyzed statistically. Histomorphometric quantitative analysis of H&E stained sections to quantify the percent bone formation at 6 and 8 weeks after implantation was also performed. The gained results showed a significant increase of bone regeneration by 60 days in both BG and BG/PRP–groups (P<0.05 and P<0.001, respectively). Whereas, the healing pattern created by PRP/BG was better comparing to that of BG alone. We noticed unexpectedly incomplete defect closure in PRP-group by 60 days, even though and interestingly, PRP alone accelerated bone radiopacity and new osseous formation significantly only at early stages of healing period (P<0.01). Histomorphometric analyzed data indicated an increasing bone formation over time in all treated defects except PRP during 8 weeks. In conclusion, PRP alone does not provide an appreciated healing effect; however, in future, use of PRP combined with 45S5 BG might be clinically beneficial for proper bone regeneration as safe and appropriate biomaterial. MohaMed Tayiser saMy, isMail aTTia shaban, islaM Foad Mandoh, ahMed abdelbaseT isMail el-azzazy* Novel Practical Insight into Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Combination with Bioresorbable Silicate 45S5 Bioactive Glass for Bone Defect Repair: an Experimental Study in a Rabbit Model

advances in animal and veterinary sciences

Novel Practical Insight into Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Combination with Bioresorbable Silicate 45S5 Bioactive Glass for Bone Defect Repair: an Experimental Study in a Rabbit Model