Premium
Comparison of Porous Bone Mineral and Biologically Active Glass in Critical‐Sized Defects
Author(s) -
Schmitt John M.,
Buck David C.,
Joh SeongPil,
Lynch Samuel E.,
Hollinger Jeffrey O.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1043
Subject(s) - dentistry , bone mineral , bioactive glass , dental alveolus , porosity , biological activity , biomedical engineering , medicine , materials science , chemistry , pathology , osteoporosis , composite material , biochemistry , in vitro
S everal materials have been proposed as therapies to augment alveolar bone and to promote periodontal regeneration. However, there are an insufficient number of studies that effectively evaluated these therapies. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to compare bone regeneration promoted by porous bone mineral and biologically active glass. Unilateral critical‐sized defects (CSDs) were prepared in the radii of 24 rabbits, divided evenly between 2 time periods (4 and 8 weeks) and between 2 treatment groups (porous bone mineral and biologically active glass). Evaluations consisted of clinical examinations, standardized radiography at baseline and every 2 weeks thereafter, as well as histology and histomorphometry. Data were analyzed by an unpaired Student t ‐test with significance established at P ≤ 0.05. We determined that CSDs treated with porous bone mineral were significantly more radiopaque than biologically active glass‐treated sites at both 4 and 8 weeks. Moreover, the amount of new bone was significantly greater at both 4 and 8 weeks in the porous bone mineral groups than in the biologically active glass groups. We concluded that in the rabbit radius CSD wound model, porous bone mineral appears to be more effective than biologically active glass in regenerating bone. J Periodontol 1997;68:1043–1053 .