Desing and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behavior in a rabbit model

AIM

Compare bone formation capacity in vivo of two types of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxyapatites and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite support, and with bioactive mesoporous glass support. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than in the autograft group.

CONCLUSION

Both supports seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.

[Translated article] Design and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behaviour in a rabbit model

AIM

To compare the in vivo bone formation capacity of of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxiapatite and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite scaffold, and with bioactive mesoporous glass scaffold. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than the autograft group.

CONCLUSION

Both scaffolds seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.