Open Access
Comparing the Efficacy of Three Different Nano-scale Bone Substitutes: In vivo Study
Author(s) -
Sayed Mohammad Razavi,
Mansour Rismanchian,
Nasim Jafari-Pozve,
S Nosouhian
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
advanced biomedical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2277-9175
DOI - 10.4103/2277-9175.192627
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , biocompatible material , significant difference , nanofiber , connective tissue , animal study , biomedical engineering , surgery , materials science , pathology , composite material
Background: Synthetic biocompatible bone substitutions have been used widely for bone tissue regeneration as they are safe and effective. The aim of this animal study is to compare the effectiveness of three different biocompatible bone substitutes, including nano-hydroxyapatite (nano-HA) nano-bioglass (nano-BG) and forstrite scaffolds. Materials and Methods: In this interventional and experimental study, four healthy dogs were anesthetized, and the first to fourth premolars were extracted in each quadrant. After healing, the linear incision on the crestal ridge from molar to anterior segment prepared in each quadrant and 16 defects in each dog were prepared. Nano-HA, nano-BG, and forstrite scaffold was prepared according to the size of defects and placed in the 12 defects randomly, four defects remained as a control group. The dogs were sacrificed in four time intervals (15, 30, 45, and 60 days after) and the percentage of different types of regenerated bones (lamellar and woven) and connective tissue were recorded in histological process. The data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney test (α = 0.05). Results: The difference in nano-HA and nano-BG with the control group was significant in three-time intervals regarding the amount of bone formation (P < 0.01). After 15 days, the nano-HA showed the highest amount of woven and lamellar bone regeneration (18.37 ± 1.06 and 30.44 ± 0.54). Conclusion: Nano-HA and nano-BG groups showed a significant amount of bone regeneration, especially after 30 days, but paying more surveys and observation to these materials as bone substitutes seem to be needed