The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparing Three Different Three-dimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: An in vivo Study

Saeid Nosouhian, Amin Davoudi, Mansour Rismanchian, Sayed Mohammad Razavi, Hamidreza Sadeghiyan

Citation Information : Nosouhian S, Davoudi A, Rismanchian M, Razavi SM, Sadeghiyan H. Comparing Three Different Three-dimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (1):25-30.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1630

Published Online: 01-05-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).


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.

How to cite this article

Rismanchian M, Nosouhian S, Razavi SM, Davoudi A, Sadeghiyan H. Comparing Three Different Threedimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(1):25-30.

PDF Share
  1. Osteogenic scaffolds for bone reconstruction. Biores Open Access 2012;1(3):137-144.
  2. Osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stromal cells on 45S5 bioglass(R) based scaffolds in vitro and in vivo. Tissue Eng Part A 2013;19(5-6):707-715.
  3. Sponges stimulate alveolar bone, cementum and periodontal ligament regeneration in a canine class II furcation defect model. J Periodontal Res 2014;49(2):164-178.
  4. A bioactive ‘self-fitting’ shape memory polymer scaffold with potential to treat craniomaxillo facial bone defects. Acta Biomater 2014;24(11):1-9.
  5. Long-term evaluation of the use of coralline hydroxyapatite in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56(8):935-941.
  6. Bioactive glass scaffolds for bone regeneration and their hierarchical characterisation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2010;224(12):1373-1387.
  7. Development of nano-hydroxyapatite graft with silk fibroin scaffold as a new bone substitute. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(6):1578-1586.
  8. Molecular basis for action of bioactive glasses as bone graft substitute. Scand J Surg 2006;95(2):95-102.
  9. Clinical evaluation of an enamel matrix protein derivative combined with a bioactive glass for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans. J Periodontol 2002;73(4):401-408.
  10. Macroscopical, histological, and morphometric studies of porous bone-replacement materials in minipigs 8 months after implantation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102(5):606-613.
  11. A review of bioceramics and fibrin sealant. Eur Cell Mater 2004;8:1-10.
  12. In vitro calcified matrix deposition by human osteoblasts onto a zinc-containing bioactive glass. Eur Cell Mater 2011;21:59-72.
  13. Biocompatibility analysis of bioglass(R) 45S5 and biosilicate(R) implants in the rabbit eviscerated socket. Orbit 2012;31(3):143-149.
  14. A clinical comparison of nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) and autogenous bone graft in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16(3):448-453.
  15. Histological evaluation of healing after transalveolar maxillary sinus augmentation with bioglass and autogenous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(1):125-131.
  16. Bone augmentation with bioactive glass in three cases of dental implant placement. J Biomater Appl 2006;20(4):325-339.
  17. Composite scaffolds of mesoporous bioactive glass and polyamide for bone repair. Int J Nanomedicine 2012;7:2547-2555.
  18. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 2013;9(1):4457-4486.
  19. Bioglassderived glass-ceramic scaffolds: study of cell proliferation and scaffold degradation in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008;84(4):1049-1060.
  20. Nanostructure effects on the bioactivity of forsterite bioceramic. Materials Letters 2011;65(4):740-743.
  21. Synthesis of nanocrystalline forsterite (Mg2SiO4) powder by combined mechanical activation and thermal treatment. Materials Research Bulletin 2011;45(4):388-391.
  22. M. Novel forsterite/polycaprolactone nanocomposite scaffold for tissue engineering applications. Materials Letters 2011;65(12):1931-1934.
  23. Biodegradable and bioactive properties of a novel bone scaffold coated with nanocrystalline bioactive glass for bone tissue engineering. Materials Letters 2010;64(13):1528-1531.
  24. Engineering bone tissue using human dental pulp stem cells and an osteogenic collagen-hydroxyapatite-poly(-lactide-co-{varepsilon}-caprolactone) scaffold. J Biomater Appl 2013;28(6):922-936.
  25. Development of collagen/demineralized bone powder scaffolds and periosteum-derived cells for bone tissue engineering application. Int J Mol Sci 2013;14(1):2056-2071.
  26. Fabrication and characterization of biomimetic collagen-apatite scaffolds with tunable structures for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 2013 Jul;9(7):7308-7319.
  27. A porous scaffold for bone tissue engineering/45S5 Bioglass derived porous scaffolds for co-culturing osteoblasts and endothelial cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21(3):893-905.
  28. Transplantation of nano-bioglass/gelatin scaffold in a non-autogenous setting for bone regeneration in a rabbit ulna. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012;23(11):2783-2792.
  29. Comparative study of PCL-HAp and PCL-bioglass composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2013;24(5):1293-1308.
  30. The influence of bioglass nanoparticles on the biodegradation and biocompatibility of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) scaffolds. Int J Artif Organs 2012;35(11):1015-1024.
  31. Utilization of a bioactive synthetic particulate for periodontal therapy and bone augmentation techniques. Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent 1997;9:1-9.
  32. Effect of heat treatment on the properties of SiO2-CaO-MgO-P2O5 bioactive glasses. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2012;23(9):2101-2108.
  33. Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation using a synthetic nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitution material (Ostim): preliminary clinical and histological results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(6):743-751.
  34. In vitro effects of nanophase hydroxyapatite particles on proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 2009;90(4):1083-1091.
  35. Bone response to biosilicates with different crystal phases. Braz Dent J 2010;21(5):383-389.
  36. Effect of incorporation of nanoscale bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite in PCL/chitosan nanofibers for bone and periodontal tissue engineering. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2013;9(3):430-440.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.