Ardelean Alina Ioana, Mârza Sorin Marian, Marica Raluca, Dragomir Mădălina Florina, Rusu-Moldovan Alina Oana, Moldovan Mărioara, Pașca Paula Maria, Oana Liviu
Department of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Department of Veterinary Imagistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Life (Basel). 2024 Aug 30;14(9):1097. doi: 10.3390/life14091097.
Repairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investigate the osteogenic potential and toxicological tolerance of the bioproducts through histopathology and computed tomography imaging analysis at 14, 28, 56, and 90 days post-implantation. The biomaterials used in the investigation consisted of a 65% bioactive salinized inorganic filler and a 25% weight organic matrix. The organic part of the biomaterial was composed of Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), HEMA (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), while the inorganic filler was composed of silica, barium glass, hydroxyapatite, and fluor aluminosilicate glass. The first findings of this research are encouraging, revealing that there is a slight difference between the groups treated with biomaterials, but it might be an effective approach for managing bone abnormalities. Material C1 exhibited a faster bone defect healing time compared to material C2, where bone fractures occurred in some individuals. It is unclear if the fractures were caused by the presence of the biomaterial C2 or whether additional variables were to blame. By the end of the research, the mice appeared to tolerate the biomaterials without exhibiting any inflammatory or rejection responses.
修复或重建严重的骨缺损通常具有挑战性。在本研究中,两种复合骨水泥被用作大鼠亚临界股骨缺损的支架。使用一个对照组和两个实验组来比较结果。本研究旨在通过组织病理学和计算机断层扫描成像分析,在植入后14天、28天、56天和90天研究这些生物制品的成骨潜力和毒理学耐受性。研究中使用的生物材料由65%的生物活性盐化无机填料和25%的有机基质组成。生物材料的有机部分由双酚A-甲基丙烯酸缩水甘油酯(Bis-GMA)、二甲基丙烯酸氨基甲酸乙酯(UDMA)、甲基丙烯酸羟乙酯(HEMA)和三乙二醇二甲基丙烯酸酯(TEGDMA)组成,而无机填料由二氧化硅、钡玻璃、羟基磷灰石和氟铝硅酸盐玻璃组成。这项研究的初步结果令人鼓舞,表明使用生物材料治疗的组之间存在细微差异,但这可能是一种治疗骨异常的有效方法。与材料C2相比,材料C1的骨缺损愈合时间更快,在材料C2组中一些个体出现了骨折。目前尚不清楚骨折是由生物材料C2的存在引起的,还是其他变量导致的。在研究结束时,小鼠似乎能够耐受这些生物材料,没有表现出任何炎症或排斥反应。