Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Azenha,Marcelo Rodrigues
Data de Publicação: 2010
Outros Autores: Peitl,Oscar, Barros,Valdemar Mallet da Rocha
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Journal
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402010000500001
Resumo: The aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass®45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass®45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass®45S5 and Biosilicate® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment.
id FUNORP-1_26bf8ddcbdf218ca3bcbd76529de54c7
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0103-64402010000500001
network_acronym_str FUNORP-1
network_name_str Brazilian Dental Journal
repository_id_str
spelling Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phasesbiosilicatebioglassbiocompatibilitybone responseThe aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass®45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass®45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass®45S5 and Biosilicate® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment.Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto2010-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402010000500001Brazilian Dental Journal v.21 n.5 2010reponame:Brazilian Dental Journalinstname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)instacron:FUNORP10.1590/S0103-64402010000500001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAzenha,Marcelo RodriguesPeitl,OscarBarros,Valdemar Mallet da Rochaeng2010-12-10T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0103-64402010000500001Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bdj/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br1806-47600103-6440opendoar:2010-12-10T00:00Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
title Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
spellingShingle Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
Azenha,Marcelo Rodrigues
biosilicate
bioglass
biocompatibility
bone response
title_short Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
title_full Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
title_fullStr Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
title_full_unstemmed Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
title_sort Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
author Azenha,Marcelo Rodrigues
author_facet Azenha,Marcelo Rodrigues
Peitl,Oscar
Barros,Valdemar Mallet da Rocha
author_role author
author2 Peitl,Oscar
Barros,Valdemar Mallet da Rocha
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Azenha,Marcelo Rodrigues
Peitl,Oscar
Barros,Valdemar Mallet da Rocha
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv biosilicate
bioglass
biocompatibility
bone response
topic biosilicate
bioglass
biocompatibility
bone response
description The aim of this study was to investigate the histological and histomorphometrical bone response to three Biosilicates with different crystal phases comparing them to Bioglass®45S5 implants used as control. Ceramic glass Biosilicate and Bioglass®45S5 implants were bilaterally inserted in rabbit femurs and harvested after 8 and 12 weeks. Histological examination did not revealed persistent inflammation or foreign body reaction at implantation sites. Bone and a layer of soft tissue were observed in close contact with the implant surfaces in the medullary canal. The connective tissue presented few elongated cells and collagen fibers located parallel to implant surface. Cortical portion after 8 weeks was the only area that demonstrated significant difference between all tested materials, with Biosilicate 1F and Biosilicate 2F presenting higher bone formation than Bioglass®45S5 and Biosilicate® vitreo (p=0.02). All other areas and periods were statistically non-significant (p>0.05). In conclusion, all tested materials were considered biocompatible, demonstrating surface bone formation and a satisfactory behavior at biological environment.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402010000500001
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402010000500001
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0103-64402010000500001
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal v.21 n.5 2010
reponame:Brazilian Dental Journal
instname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron:FUNORP
instname_str Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron_str FUNORP
institution FUNORP
reponame_str Brazilian Dental Journal
collection Brazilian Dental Journal
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br
_version_ 1754204091391672320