Inflammatory response and macrophage polarization using different physicochemical biomaterials for oral and maxillofacial reconstruction

• Autor(a) principal: Munerato, Marcelo Salles
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Biguetti, Claudia Cristina [UNESP], Parra da Silva, Raquel Barroso [UNESP], Rodrigues da Silva, Ana Claudia [UNESP], Zucon Bacelar, Ana Carolina [UNESP], Lima da Silva, Jordan, Rondina Couto, Maira Cristina, Húngaro Duarte, Marco Antônio, Santiago-Junior, Joel Ferreira, Bossini, Paulo Sérgio, Matsumoto, Mariza Akemi [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.110229; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/198112
• topic: Biomaterials; Bone substitutes; Macrophages; Osteoimmunology; Rats

Knowledge about the action of immune system in the recognition of biomaterials has been extremely helpful when it comes about understanding host response and biomaterials' fate in human body. This study aimed to investigate inflammatory response and macrophage polarization during bone healing process of rat's calvaria critical defects using different bone materials in order to evaluate their influence on bone repair and on the quality of the newly formed bone tissue. Eighty male albinus Wistar rats underwent surgical procedure for the confectioning of a 5-mm diameter bone defect in their right parietal bone, and divided in four groups (n = 20 each), according the biomaterial: AG – Control, particulate intramembranous autogenous bone graft, HA/TCP – particulate biphasic calcium phosphate with HA/TCP (60/40), DBB – particulate deproteinized bovine bone, VC – particulate bioactive vitroceramic. After 3, 7, 21, and 45 days, the specimens were removed and prepared for microcomputed tomography (microCT), light and polarized microscopy, immunohistochemical analysis, and histomorphometry. No significant differences were detected considering percentage of leukocytes among the groups and periods, as well as in relation to immunolabeling for inflammatory (M1) and reparative (M2) macrophages. However, immunolabeling for bone marker indicated a delayed osteoblast differentiation in VC group, resulting in a decrease in mineralized bone matrix parameters in this group, revealed by microCT. In addition, AG and HA/TCP presented a satisfactory bone collagenous content. Despite the distinct origins and physicochemical properties of the tested biomaterials, they presented similar immune-inflammatory responses in the present experimental model, influencing bone-related proteins and bone quality, which must be considered according to their use.