AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightAfter evaluating theresults, both materials were found not to be very useful in the bone healing process.Conclusion: CTBC remained for a long time without being resorbed; it can be used as a placeholder in large bone defects, whereas thegel form of chitosan cannot be utilized for this purpose because it was resorbed in the first 7 days.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/aim: This study evaluated the histopathological effects of two different bone grafts, calcium triglyceride bone cement(CTBC) and chitosan, on the healing of experimental bone defects.Materials and methods: Ninety-two Sprague Dawley male rats, with a weight of 240 ± 20 g, were used. Two experimental groups thatconsisted of 64 rats were divided into four subgroups due to the sacrification days, which were 7, 14, 30, and 60. After creating an 8-mmlong and 1-mm-wide cortico-cancellous bone defect in the right tibia of each rat, CTBC and chitosan were applied to the bone defects.In the main group, after creating the bone defects in the right tibias, we kept those empty to serve as the control group. We evaluatedinflammation, foreign body reaction, necrosis, fibrosis, new bone formation, and the residual graft material at 7, 14, 30, and 60 days.Results: In both the CTBC and chitosan groups, the new bone formation was higher than that in the control group, whereas foreign bodyreaction and residual graft material in the CTBC group and fibrosis in the chitosan group were significantly higher. After evaluating theresults, both materials were found not to be very useful in the bone healing process.Conclusion: CTBC remained for a long time without being resorbed; it can be used as a placeholder in large bone defects, whereas thegel form of chitosan cannot be utilized for this purpose because it was resorbed in the first 7 days.