File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of the effects of alendronate sodium and calcitonin on bone-prosthesis osseointegration in osteoporotic rats

TitleComparison of the effects of alendronate sodium and calcitonin on bone-prosthesis osseointegration in osteoporotic rats
Authors
Issue Date2011
PublisherSpringer U K. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/orthopedics/journal/198
Citation
Osteoporosis International, 2011, v. 22 n. 1, p. 265-270 How to Cite?
AbstractSummary: Alendronate (ALO) and calcitonin (CT), as commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs in current clinical practice, have been experimentally confirmed to produce the effectiveness of promoting osseointegration at the interface between prosthesis and host bone and enhancing the long-term stability of the prosthesis. Our current study compared these two drugs' effects on the osseointegration of prosthesis and found that both of them could promote bone attachment between prosthesis and host bone; moreover, ALO produced more pronounced effectiveness. Introduction: A series of findings confirmed that ALO and CT improved bone attachment of implant in animals. However, which one shows stronger effectiveness has not yet been reported by previous researches. Our study compared the effects of the two commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs on the bone-prosthesis osseointegration so as to provide valuable reference for current clinical options of medication. Methods: Forty female SD rats aged 5 months were randomly set into A, B, C, and D groups. Except for group A, the others were ovariectomized to establish osteoporosis model (lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) decreased by 20% 4 weeks after ovariectomy). All the rats received prosthesis implantation at their tibial plateau. Then, the rats in groups C and D were given ALO (7 mg/kg/w) orally and CT (5 IU/kg/day) subcutaneously for 12 weeks, respectively. Prior to the execution, application of tetracycline hydrochloride for staining in vivo was done. After harvesting and embedding, the tibia with implants were cut into thin slides, then the bone histomorphometry was measured to observe the new bone around prosthesis and to calculate the osseointegration rate of the implants. By comparison, the effect of the two drugs on osseointegration was evaluated. Results: (1) Both ALO and CT can effectively enhance the volume of bone mass surrounding the hydroxyapatite (HA) prosthesis and also significantly lever up osseointegration rate to 63.7% and 45.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). However, ALO produced more periprosthesis osseointegration rate than CT, with difference of 18% (p < 0.05). (2) The rats' lumber BMD increased in both ALO and CT groups, from 0.081 ± 0.009 and 0.078 ± 0.009 to 0.116 ± 0.008 and 0.109 ± 0.010 g/cm 2, respectively. Moreover, the effect of ALO was observed more pronounced than that of CT. Conclusions: In osteoporotic conditions, both administration of ALO orally and CT subcutaneously can enhance periprosthesis bone mass and the effects on osseointegration between host bone and prosthesis. Compared with CT, the effect of ALO is more pronounced. © 2010 International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/170167
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.445
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.460
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChen, BLen_US
dc.contributor.authorXie, DHen_US
dc.contributor.authorZheng, ZMen_US
dc.contributor.authorLu, Wen_US
dc.contributor.authorNing, CYen_US
dc.contributor.authorLi, YQen_US
dc.contributor.authorLi, FBen_US
dc.contributor.authorLiao, WMen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-30T06:05:45Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-30T06:05:45Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationOsteoporosis International, 2011, v. 22 n. 1, p. 265-270en_US
dc.identifier.issn0937-941Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/170167-
dc.description.abstractSummary: Alendronate (ALO) and calcitonin (CT), as commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs in current clinical practice, have been experimentally confirmed to produce the effectiveness of promoting osseointegration at the interface between prosthesis and host bone and enhancing the long-term stability of the prosthesis. Our current study compared these two drugs' effects on the osseointegration of prosthesis and found that both of them could promote bone attachment between prosthesis and host bone; moreover, ALO produced more pronounced effectiveness. Introduction: A series of findings confirmed that ALO and CT improved bone attachment of implant in animals. However, which one shows stronger effectiveness has not yet been reported by previous researches. Our study compared the effects of the two commonly used antiosteoporosis drugs on the bone-prosthesis osseointegration so as to provide valuable reference for current clinical options of medication. Methods: Forty female SD rats aged 5 months were randomly set into A, B, C, and D groups. Except for group A, the others were ovariectomized to establish osteoporosis model (lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) decreased by 20% 4 weeks after ovariectomy). All the rats received prosthesis implantation at their tibial plateau. Then, the rats in groups C and D were given ALO (7 mg/kg/w) orally and CT (5 IU/kg/day) subcutaneously for 12 weeks, respectively. Prior to the execution, application of tetracycline hydrochloride for staining in vivo was done. After harvesting and embedding, the tibia with implants were cut into thin slides, then the bone histomorphometry was measured to observe the new bone around prosthesis and to calculate the osseointegration rate of the implants. By comparison, the effect of the two drugs on osseointegration was evaluated. Results: (1) Both ALO and CT can effectively enhance the volume of bone mass surrounding the hydroxyapatite (HA) prosthesis and also significantly lever up osseointegration rate to 63.7% and 45.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). However, ALO produced more periprosthesis osseointegration rate than CT, with difference of 18% (p < 0.05). (2) The rats' lumber BMD increased in both ALO and CT groups, from 0.081 ± 0.009 and 0.078 ± 0.009 to 0.116 ± 0.008 and 0.109 ± 0.010 g/cm 2, respectively. Moreover, the effect of ALO was observed more pronounced than that of CT. Conclusions: In osteoporotic conditions, both administration of ALO orally and CT subcutaneously can enhance periprosthesis bone mass and the effects on osseointegration between host bone and prosthesis. Compared with CT, the effect of ALO is more pronounced. © 2010 International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer U K. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/orthopedics/journal/198en_US
dc.relation.ispartofOsteoporosis Internationalen_US
dc.subject.meshAlendronate - Pharmacology - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshAnimalsen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Density - Drug Effectsen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Density Conservation Agents - Pharmacology - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshCalcitonin - Pharmacology - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshDisease Models, Animalen_US
dc.subject.meshDrug Evaluation, Preclinical - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshJoint Prosthesisen_US
dc.subject.meshOsseointegration - Drug Effectsen_US
dc.subject.meshOsteoporosis, Postmenopausal - Drug Therapy - Physiopathologyen_US
dc.subject.meshOvariectomyen_US
dc.subject.meshRatsen_US
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.titleComparison of the effects of alendronate sodium and calcitonin on bone-prosthesis osseointegration in osteoporotic ratsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLu, W:wwlu@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLu, W=rp00411en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00198-010-1186-5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid20204600-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-78651477097en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-78651477097&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage265en_US
dc.identifier.epage270en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000286003200032-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChen, BL=50261365200en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridXie, DH=34874102700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZheng, ZM=7403007434en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLu, W=7404215221en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNing, CY=9238411800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, YQ=50262291800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, FB=7406056863en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLiao, WM=7203056975en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike6830857-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats