Histological Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Hydroxyapatite Based Bone Substitute Derived from Antler: An Animal Study

Naser Sargolzaie,Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh,Ahmad Reza Ebadian,Reyhaneh Shafieian,Sajjad Pourkaveh,Nava Naghibi,Mahdiye Fasihi Ramandie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2021039830
Abstract:Objective: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is considered as a prerequisite in some cases of implant dentistry. For this purpose, bone materials are commonly used. Calcium compounds and Ca-P based materials like hydroxyapatite (HA, Ca10 (PO4)6(OH)2), due to their similarity with the human bone, can be used as graft materials for bone regeneration. This study aimed to evaluate biocompatibility of antler xenograft and compare the osteoconduction effects of antler xenograft with Cerabone in regeneration of calvarium bony defects of rabbits. Methods and materials: Five defects with a diameter of 6 mm and a depth of 3 mm were prepared in the calvarium of four rabbits. Thereafter, two defects were randomly grafted with antler xenograft, two defects were filled with Cerabone, and one defect remained as the untreated group. Histological evaluations, including measuring percentage of new regenerated bone and the amounts of osteoblast, osteoclast, and osteocyte cells, were also performed. To do statistical analyses, paired t-test, chi-square, and Fisher tests were applied. Results: The percentage of new bone formation was significantly higher in antler xenograft (73.33%) and in Cerabone (48.91%) compared to the untreated group (18.91%). The amounts of osteocytes and osteoblasts were obtained as 3.52 ± 0.17 and 2.41 ± 0.24 in the Antler xenograft and as 2.57 ± 0.29 and 2.31 ± 0.32 in the Cerabone group, respectively. Bone marrow formation were significantly higher in antler xenograft (6.66 ± 5.34) and Cerabone (1.99 ± 3.17) compared to the untreated group. Conclusion: According to this pilot study, results of using antler xenograft as an osteoconductive materials in regeneration of rabbit calvarial defects are comparable with Cerabone. Although more clinical studies are needed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?