In vivo comparison of synthetic osseous graft materials. A preliminary study

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 239 - 245
• Main Authors: MacNeill, S R, Cobb, C M, Rapley, J W, Glaros, A G, Spencer, P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.04.1999
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Animals; Biocompatible Materials - chemistry; Biocompatible Materials - therapeutic use; Bone and Bones - anatomy & histology; Bone and Bones - physiology; Bone and Bones - surgery; Bone Remodeling - physiology; Bone Substitutes - chemistry; Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use; Bone Transplantation; Calcium Sulfate - therapeutic use; Ceramics - chemistry; Ceramics - therapeutic use; Dentistry; Disease Models, Animal; Durapatite - therapeutic use; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Male; Osteogenesis - physiology; Osteotomy; Particle Size; Rabbits; Tibia; Transplantation, Autologous; Wound Healing
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051X.1999.260407.x

The purpose of this study was to compare the in vivo osseous healing response of 4 commercially-available synthetic bone grafting materials; hydroxylapatite (HA), calcium sulfate (CaSO4) plus autogenous bone, or a bioactive glass ceramic: with particle size of 300-360 microm (BG1) or 90 to 710 microm (BG2). 4 osteotomy sites were prepared in each tibia of 10 adult male rabbits. One unfilled osteotomy site served as negative control (NC) and another site filled with autogenous bone was the positive control (PC). All animals received BG1 in 2 sites and BG2 in 2 sites. 5 animals received HA and five CaSO4 plus autogenous bone in the remaining 2 sites. Animals were sacrificed at 28 days post-surgery, histologic sections obtained and the % surface area of new bone formation for each material was determined by computerized image analysis. All graft sites showed evidence of bone formation, i.e., (NC) 41.95%; (PC) 50.41%; (BG1) 41.82%; (BG2) 40.36%; (HA) 41.83% and (CaSO4) 58.83%. Statistical analysis using an ANOVA with repeated measures on the materials common to all animals (excluding HA and CaSO4 groups) showed significant differences between materials in surface area of bone, with positive controls better than negative controls, and BG1 and BG2 not significantly different from the negative control. These results indicate that synthetic graft materials can support new bone formation in surgically prepared defects. The utility of a rabbit model for studying physiologic osseous turnover and healing is questioned for studies of slowly resorbing synthetic graft materials.