Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6

Histopathological and biomechanical evaluation of bone healing properties of DBM and DBM-G90 in a rabbit model

Sayfa
683–689
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

There was not a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with contralateral normal bones, nor was there a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with the treated bones of the control group, in terms of other biomechanical tests.Conclusion: Based on the histopathological and biomechanical findings, the DBM and DBM-G90 groups demonstrated superior osteogenic potential; however, G90 shows no superiority over DBM on bone healing.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The present study was designed to investigate the effects of DBM and DBM-G90 on bone healing in a rabbit model.Methods: Thirty male white albino rabbits were used in this study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A 10-mm segmental defect was created on the middle portion of each radius.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:There was not a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with contralateral normal bones, nor was there a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with the treated bones of the control group, in terms of other biomechanical tests.Conclusion: Based on the histopathological and biomechanical findings, the DBM and DBM-G90 groups demonstrated superior osteogenic potential; however, G90 shows no superiority over DBM on bone healing.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The present study was designed to investigate the effects of DBM and DBM-G90 on bone healing in a rabbit model.Methods: Thirty male white albino rabbits were used in this study. An incision was made in all rabbits under general anesthesia directly over the radius in order to expose it. A 10-mm segmental defect was created on the middle portion of each radius. The defects of 10 rabbits (Group I) were filled with DBM Block and Strip (Zimmer, Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA), the defects of 10 rabbits (Group II) were filled with DBM soaked in G90, and the defects of 10 rabbits (Group III/control) were left empty. The rabbits were euthanized at 60 days postoperatively for histopathological and biomechanical evaluation.Results: At the histopathologic level, the defects of the animals in the DBM and DBM-G90 groups showed more advanced healing criteria than those of the control group. In biomechanical findings, there was a statistically significant difference between the injured bones and contralateral normal bones of the control group in terms of measured strength. There was not a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with contralateral normal bones, nor was there a statistically significant difference between the treated bones of the DBM and DBM-G90 groups with the treated bones of the control group, in terms of other biomechanical tests.Conclusion: Based on the histopathological and biomechanical findings, the DBM and DBM-G90 groups demonstrated superior osteogenic potential; however, G90 shows no superiority over DBM on bone healing.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

PARIZI, A. M., ORYAN, A., HADDADI, S., SADEGH, A. B. (2015). Histopathological and biomechanical evaluation of bone healing properties of DBM and DBM-G90 in a rabbit model. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6, 683–689. https://ajindex.com/articles/212556

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Shafiei Z, Bigham AS, Dehghani SN, Nezhad ST. Fresh cortical autograft versus fresh cortical allograft effects on experimental bone healing in rabbits: radiological, histo- pathological and biomechanical evaluation. Cell Tissue Bank 2009;10:19-26.
  2. Bigham-Sadegh A, Oryan A. Selection of animal models for pre-clinical strategies in evaluating the fracture heal- ing, bone graft substitutes and bone tissue regeneration and engineering. Connect Tissue Res 2015;56:175-94.
  3. Bigham-Sadegh A, Karimi I, Alebouye M, Shafie-Sarvest- ani Z, Oryan A. Evaluation of bone healing in canine tibial defects filled with cortical autograft, commercial-DBM, calf fetal DBM, omentum and omentum-calf fetal DBM. J Vet Sci 2013;14:337-43. Stevenson S. Enhancement of fracture healing with autog- enous and allogeneic bone grafts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;(355 Suppl):239-46.
  4. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1055-60.
  5. Bigham A, Shadkhast M, Dehghani S. Autogenous bone marrow concurrent with static magnetic field effects on bone-defect healing: radiological and histological study. Comparative Clinical Pathology 2009;18:163-8.
  6. Parizi AM, Oryan A, Shafiei-Sarvestani Z, Bigham AS. Human platelet rich plasma plus Persian Gulf coral effects on experimental bone healing in rabbit model: radiologi- cal, histological, macroscopical and biomechanical evalua- tion. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012;23:473-83.
  7. Oryan A, Meimandi Parizi A, Shafiei-Sarvestani Z, Big- ham AS. Effects of combined hydroxyapatite and human platelet rich plasma on bone healing in rabbit model: ra- diological, macroscopical, hidtopathological and biome- chanical evaluation. Cell Tissue Bank 2012;13:639-51.
  8. Bigham-Sadegh A, Mirshokraei P, Karimi I, Oryan A, Aparviz A, Shafiei-Sarvestani Z. Effects of adipose tis- sue stem cell concurrent with greater omentum on ex- perimental long-bone healing in dog. Connect Tissue Res 2012;53:334-42.
  9. Bigham AS, Dehghani SN, Shafiei Z, Torabi Nezhad S. Xenogenic demineralized bone matrix and fresh autog- enous cortical bone effects on experimental bone healing: radiological, histopathological and biomechanical evalua- tion. J Orthop Traumatol 2008;9:73-80.
  10. Du C, Cui FZ, Feng QL, Zhu XD, de Groot K. Tis- sue response to nano-hydroxyapatite/collagen com- posite implants in marrow cavity. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;42:540-8. El-Ghannam A. Bone reconstruction: from bioceramics to tissue engineer