Premium
Effect of bioresorbable fibres (Polyfibre ® ) and a bioresorbable foam (Polyfoam ® ) on new bone formation
Author(s) -
Wallkamm Beat,
Schmid Jürg,
Hämmerle Christoph H.F.,
Gogolewski Sylwester,
Lang Niklaus P.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00930.x
Subject(s) - calvaria , polylactic acid , volume (thermodynamics) , biomedical engineering , materials science , bone tissue , dentistry , chemistry , composite material , medicine , polymer , biochemistry , physics , quantum mechanics , in vitro
The aim of the study was to evaluate two bioresorbable polylactic acid (PLA) filler materials in a guided bone regeneration (GBR) model system. The first was Polyfibre ® , a fibrous PLA filler material. Polyfoam ® , the second material tested, consisted of a spongy PLA filler material. In each group there were eight rabbits. In test rabbits a flap was raised uncovering the calvaria. A hemispherical PLA dome was filled with Polyfibre ® or Polyfoam ® material and periphereal blood and anchored onto the calvaria. Eight rabbits with the same domes, filled with blood alone, served as controls. The rabbits were sacrificed at 1 or 2 months. Histomorphometric measurements of regenerated total tissue volume, bone height and bone volume were carried out in undecalcified sections under a light microscope. At 1 month the totally filled volume attained 87% (range 82–91) in the fibre group, including 25% (23–27) fibres, 87% (85–95) in the foam group, including 15% (15–16) foam, and 55% (16–100) in the controls. The volume of mineralized bone was 12% (7–15) in the fibre group, 15% (12–18) in the foam group and 6% (1–11) in control domes. Bone height attained 48% (27–79) in the fibre group, 37% (31–58) in the foam group and 45% (14–67) in the control group. At 2 months, tissue volume attained 86% (85–87) including 26% (22–29) fibres, bone volume attained 13% (7–21) and bone height attained 56% (42–78) in the Polyfibre ® group. In the Polyfoam ® group, they were 83% (55–99) including 18% (15–19) foam, 13% (7–24) and 49% (29–74). In control domes, tissue volume was 82% (35–100), bone volume 20% (9–27) and bone height 86% (60–100). The Polyfibre ® and Polyfoam ® material was excellently integrated. No adverse reactions were found in the surrounding tissues. Direct bone apposition was observed onto the material. In conclusion, Polyfibre ® and Polyfoam ® material had a positive effect on initial bone and tissue formation but was a hindrance to increasing tissue volume, bone volume or bone height at 2 months compared to control specimens. The Polyfibre ® and Polyfoam ® material provoked no adverse reactions in the surrounding tissues and allowed for extensive angiogenesis.