Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Comparing Three Different Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: An in Vivo Study Publisher Pubmed



Rismanchian M1 ; Nosouhian S1 ; Razavi SM2 ; Davoudi A3 ; Sadeghiyan H4
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Implant Research Centre, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Dental Implant Research Centre, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  3. 3. Department of Dentistry, Dental Students Research Centre School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Medicine, Medician Student Research Centre School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan, Iran

Source: Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice Published:2015


Abstract

Introduction: Three-dimensional Scaffold structure of synthetic biomaterials with their interconnected spaces seem to be a safe and effective option in supporting bone regeneration. The aim of this animal study was to compare the effectiveness of three different biocompatible scaffolds: bioglass (BG), demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and forstrite (FR). Materials and methods: Four healthy dogs were anesthetized and the first to fourth premolars were extracted atraumatically in each quadrant. After healing, linear incision was prepared from molar to anterior segment and 4 defects in each quadrant (16 defects in each dog) were prepared. Scaffold blocks of BG, DBM and FR were resized according to size of defects and placed in the 12 defects randomly, 4 defects remained as control group. The dogs were sacrificed in 4 time intervals (15, 30, 45 and 60 days after) and the percentage of different types of regenerated bones (lamellar and woven) and connective tissue were recorded in histological process. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post hoc using SPSS software Ver. 15 at significant level of 0.05. Results: In day 30th, although the amount of regenerated lamellar bone in control, DBM and BG Scaffold (22.37 ± 3.44; 21.46 ± 1.96; 21.21 ± 0.96) were near to each, the FR Scaffold provided the highest amount of lamellar (29.71 ± 7.94) and woven bone (18.28 ± 2.35). Also, FR Scaffold showed significant difference with BG (p = 0.026) and DBM Scaffolds (p = 0.032) in regenerated lamellar bone. Conclusion: We recommend paying more attention to FR Scaffold as a biomaterial, but it is better to be compared with other nano biomaterials in future studies. © 2015
Experts (# of related papers)
Other Related Docs