Bone regeneration of the fluoridated hydroxyapatite and the bio-glass in the rabbit cranium defect model.
10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.5.380
- Author:
Hyo Joon AHN
1
;
Se Jin HAN
;
Kyung Wook KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea. kkwoms@dku.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Durapatite;
Fluor-hydroxylapatite;
Bioglass;
Bone Substitutes
- MeSH:
Acrylic Resins;
Bone Regeneration;
Bone Substitutes;
Ceramics;
Connective Tissue;
Durapatite;
Humans;
Hydroxides;
Hydroxyapatites;
Osteogenesis;
Skull;
Solubility;
Transplants
- From:Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
2011;37(5):380-385
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2, HA) is the main inorganic phase of human hard tissue that is used widely as the repair material for bones. When HA is applied to a bony defect, however, it can be encapsulated with fibrous tissue and float in the implanted area due to a lack of consolidation. Bioceramics as allogenic graft materials are added to HA to improve the rate and bone healing capacity. Fluoridated hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH,F)2, FHA), where F- partially replaces the OH- in hydroxyapatite, is considered a good alternative material for bone repair owing to its solubility and biocompatibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was designed to determine the bone healing capacity of FHA newly produced as a nanoscale fiber in the laboratory. HA and FHA with bioglass was implanted in a rabbit cranium defect and the specimen was analysed histologically. RESULTS: 1. At 4 weeks, fibrous connective tissue and little bone formation was observed around the materials of the experimental group I implanted HA and bioglass. Newly formed bone was observed around the materials in the experimental group II implanted FHA and bioglass. 2. At 8 weeks, the amount of newly formed and matured bone was higher in experimental group II than in experimental group I and the control group. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FHA and bioglass is a relatively favorable bone substitute with biocompatibility and better bone healing capacity than pure HA and bioglass.
