File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute material

TitleBone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute material
Authors
Issue Date2011
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 5, p. 506-511 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES: 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/138877
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKruse, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorJung, REen_HK
dc.contributor.authorNicholls, Fen_HK
dc.contributor.authorZwahlen, RAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHaemmerle, CHFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWeber, FEen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-23T05:41:35Z-
dc.date.available2011-09-23T05:41:35Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 5, p. 506-511en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/138877-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_HK
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com-
dc.subject.meshBone Matrix - transplantationen_HK
dc.subject.meshBone Regeneration - physiologyen_HK
dc.subject.meshBone Substitutes - therapeutic useen_HK
dc.subject.meshDurapatite - therapeutic useen_HK
dc.subject.meshMinerals - therapeutic useen_HK
dc.titleBone regeneration in the presence of a synthetic hydroxyapatite/silica oxide-based and a xenogenic hydroxyapatite-based bone substitute materialen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailZwahlen, RA: zwahlen@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailWeber, FE: franz.weber@zzmk.uzh.ch-
dc.identifier.authorityZwahlen, RA=rp00055en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02039.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21121956-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79953711414en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros193660en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79953711414&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume22en_HK
dc.identifier.issue5en_HK
dc.identifier.spage506en_HK
dc.identifier.epage511en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000289253200008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWeber, FE=7201702808en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHämmerle, CHF=7005331848en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZwahlen, RA=7004217269en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNicholls, F=36244274900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridJung, RE=7201892502en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKruse, A=26967781900en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike9130199-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats