Porous Titanium Granules in comparison with Autogenous Bone Graft in Femoral Osseous Defects: A Histomorphometric Study of Bone Regeneration and Osseointegration in Rabbits.
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2019;
2019:8105351. [PMID:
31915704 PMCID:
PMC6935454 DOI:
10.1155/2019/8105351]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2019] [Accepted: 11/09/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Background
The high resorption rate of autogenous bone is a well-documented phenomenon that can lead to insufficient bone quality and quantity in an augmented area. Nonresorbable bone substitutes might perform better than autogenous bone in certain applications if they are able to provide adequate bone formation and graft osseointegration.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to compare the osseous regeneration and graft integration in standardized defects in the rabbit femur treated either with porous titanium granules or autogenous osseous graft.
Materials and Methods
Standardized femoral osseous defects were surgically induced in 45 New Zealand rabbits. Fifteen were treated with porous titanium granules (TIGRAN™-PTG) and membrane (PTGM), 15 with autogenous graft and membrane (AGM), and 15 with membrane alone (CM, control). At six weeks, the defects were assessed histologically and histomorphometrically.
Results
PTGM as compared to AGM presented similar percentages of newly formed bone tissue, but a significantly higher fraction of the region of interest was filled with the bone substitute material. Accordingly, the composite of new bone plus bone substitute material showed significantly higher volumes for PTGM. Yet, the smaller amount of remaining autogenous bone was far better osseointegrated than the titanium granules, which in large regions showed no connection to newly formed bone. Both PTGM and AGM as compared to CM presented higher values of newly formed bone.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that PTG was similarly effective as autogenous osseous graft in achieving osseous regeneration while PTG performed markedly better in graft volume stability. The resulting higher total percentage of new bone combined with the bone substitute material in PTG could provide a superior foundation for implant placement.
Collapse