Premium
Bone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide‐based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite‐based bone substitute material
Author(s) -
Kruse A.,
Jung R. E.,
Nicholls F.,
Zwahlen R. A.,
Hämmerle C. H. F.,
Weber F. E.
Publication year - 2011
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 - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02039.x
Subject(s) - regeneration (biology) , materials science , dentistry , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Objectives: A comparison of synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide, xenogenic hydroxyapatite‐based bone substitute materials with empty control sites in terms of bone regeneration enhancement in a rabbit calvarial four non‐critical‐sized defect model. Methods: In each of six rabbits, four bicortical calvarial bone defects were generated. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: (1) empty control site, (2) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide‐based (HA/SiO) test granules, (3) xenogenic hydroxyapatite ‐based granules, (4) synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide ‐based (HA/SiO) test two granules. The results of the latter granules have not been reported due to their size being three times bigger than the other two granule types. After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and un‐decalcified sections were obtained for histological analyses. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied ( P <0.05). Results: Histomorphometric analysis showed an average area fraction of newly formed bone of 12.32±10.36% for the empty control, 17.47±6.42% for the xenogenic hydroxyapatite ‐based granules group, and 21.2±5.32% for the group treated with synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide ‐based granules. Based on the middle section, newly formed bone bridged the defect to 38.33±37.55% in the empty control group, 54.33±22.12% in the xenogenic hydroxyapatite ‐based granules group, and to 79±13.31% in the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide ‐based granules group. The bone‐to‐bone substitute contact was 46.38±18.98% for the xenogenic and 59.86±14.92% for the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide‐based granules group. No significant difference in terms of bone formation and defect bridging could be detected between the two bone substitute materials or the empty defect. Conclusion: There is evidence that the synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide granules provide comparable results with a standard xenogenic bovine mineral in terms of bone formation and defect bridging in non‐critical size defects. To cite this article:
Kruse A, Jung RE, Nicholls F, Zwahlen RA, Hämmerle CHF, Weber FE. Bone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide ‐based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite ‐based bone substitute material.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 22 , 2011; 506–511
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02039.x