Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
The aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass®45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass®45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass®45S5 and Biosilicate® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment.
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
2010
|
| Online Access: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402010000500001 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass®45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass®45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass®45S5 and Biosilicate® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment. |
|---|