Bone response to biosilicates® with different crystal phases
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2010 |
Outros Autores: | , |
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 |