Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(01): 022-028
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688735
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Different Bone Regeneration Materials: An Animal Study

R. Tamil Anbu
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
V. Suresh
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Revathy Gounder
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Abinaya Kannan
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The proposed study aimed to evaluate and compare the bone regeneration between commercially available hydroxyapatite–β-tricalcium phosphate (Ossifi; Equinox, the Netherlands), powdered polylactic acid (powdered PLA; Sigma-Aldrich, United States), and three-dimensionally printed PLA (3D-printed PLA; Cubex, SC, United States) using 3D printer (Cube X trio) in an animal model.

Materials and Methods Eighteen New Zealand rabbits were divided into three groups with six animals each. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) was collected from the venous blood and preserved. Bone defect (4 mm × 2 mm) without disturbing the bone marrow was created and filled with bone graft material (group 1–Ossifi, group 2–powdered PLA, and group 3–3D-printed PLA), over which PRF membranes were placed. The graft material and the barrier were stabilized using resorbable sutures, and all the animals were maintained for 4, 8, and 12 weeks, after which they were euthanized, and bone samples were retrieved. Retrieved bone samples were subjected to radiological and histological analysis.

Results The radiographic and histological changes of 3D-printed PLA in comparison with other two materials (Ossifi and powdered PLA) seemed to have a significant difference.

Conclusion 3D-printed PLA scaffolds showed positive signs of bone regeneration around the material in continuity defects. PLA material can be a promising alternative bone regenerative material.

Keywords

biomaterials - bone grafts - bone regeneration - bone substitutes - polylactic acid - three-dimensional printed polylactic acid
 

  • References

  • 1 Chen YJ, Pao JL, Chen CS. et al. Evaluation of new biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute: Rabbit femur defect model and preliminary clinical results. J Med Biol Eng 2017; 37 (01) 85-93
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Elsalanty ME, Genecov DG. Bone grafts in craniofacial surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2009; 2 (03) 125-134
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Roberts TT, Rosenbaum AJ. Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: the bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing. Organogenesis 2012; 8 (04) 114-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Sumer M, Keles GC, Cetinkaya BO, Balli U, Pamuk F, Uckan S. Autogenous cortical bone and bioactive glass grafting for treatment of intraosseous periodontal defects. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (01) 6-14
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ono Y, Dávalos Herrera DA, Woodmass JM, Boorman RS, Thornton GM, Lo IK. Graft augmentation versus bridging for large to massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (03) 673-680
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Fernández RF, Bucchi C, Navarro P, Beltrán V, Borie E. Bone grafts utilized in dentistry: an analysis of patients’ preferences. BMC Med Ethics 2015; 16 (01) 71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dimitriou R, Jones E, McGonagle D, Giannoudis PV. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions. BMC Med 2011; 9: 66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Subramaniam P, Kumar K, Ramakrishna T, Bhadranna A. Bone regeneration with plasma-rich-protein following enucleation of traumatic bone cyst. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (03) 377-381
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Aghaloo TL, Hadaya D. Basic principles of bioengineering and regeneration. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2017; 29 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pang L, Hao W, Jiang M, Huang J, Yan Y, Hu Y. Bony defect repair in rabbit using hybrid rapid prototyping polylacticco-glycolic acid/β-tricalciumphosphate collagen I/apatite scaffold and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Indian J Orthop 2013; 47 (04) 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Saba N, Jawaid M, Al-Othman O. An overview on polylactic acid, its cellulosic composites and applications. Current Organic Synthesis 2017; 14 (02) 156-70
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 da Silva Pereira SL, Sallum AW, Casati MZ. et al. Comparison of bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects. A histomorphometric study in dogs. J Periodontol 2000; 71 (08) 1306-1314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Nishimoto H, Kokubu T, Inui A. et al. Ligament regeneration using an absorbable stent-shaped poly-L-lactic acid scaffold in a rabbit model. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (11) 2379-2386
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 James R, Laurencin CT. Regenerative engineering and advanced materials science. MRS Bulletin 2017; 42 (08) 600-607
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ge Z, Tian X, Heng BC, Fan V, Yeo JF, Cao T. Histological evaluation of osteogenesis of 3D-printed poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) scaffolds in a rabbit model. Biomed Mater 2009; 4 (02) 021001
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Anseth KS, Metters AT, Bryant SJ, Martens PJ, Elisseeff JH, Bowman CN. In situ forming degradable networks and their application in tissue engineering and drug delivery. J Control Release 2002; 78 (01) (03) 199-209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Akagi H, Ochi H, Soeta S. et al. A comparison of the process of remodeling of hydroxyapatite/poly-D/L-lactide and beta-tricalcium phosphate in a loading site. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 730105
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Xu X, He L, Zhu B, Li J, Li J. Advances in polymeric materials for dental applications. Polymer Chemistry 2017; 8 (05) 807-823
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Tajbakhsh S, Hajiali F. A comprehensive study on the fabrication and properties of biocomposites of poly(lactic acid)/ceramics for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C 2017; 70 (Pt 1) 897-912
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Zhang X, Qi YY, Zhao TF. et al. Reconstruction of segmental bone defects in the rabbit ulna using periosteum encapsulated mesenchymal stem cells-loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) scaffolds. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012; 125 (22) 4031-4036
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Zhang H, Mao X, Du Z. et al. Three dimensional printed macroporous polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for promoting bone formation in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model. Sci Technol Adv Mater 2016; 17 (01) 136-148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Danoux CB, Barbieri D, Yuan H, de Bruijn JD, van Blitterswijk CA, Habibovic P. In vitro and in vivo bioactivity assessment of a polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite for bone regeneration. Biomatter 2014; 4: e27664
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar