Biyoaktif Cam ile Mineralize ve Demineralize Kemik Matriksinin Kemik İyileşmesi Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Radyolojik Olarak Karşılaştırılması

Bu çalışmada tavşanlarda deneysel kemik defektlerinin iyileşmesi üzerinde biyoaktif cam,mineralize kemik matriksi (MBM) ve demineralize kemik matriksi (DBM)’nin etkilerinin radyolojikbulgularının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.Çalışmada 14 adet 4-5 aylık erkek Yeni Zelanda tavşanı kullanıldı. Genel anestezi altında,tavşanların tibialarının her ikisinde proksimal metafize yakın ve ikişer adet olmak üzere hertavşanda dört adet tibial defekt oluşturuldu. Oluşturulan 56 adet defektin 14 adedi boş bırakılarakkontrol grubu olarak değerlendirildi. Diğer defektler biyoaktif cam, MBM ve DBM ile dolduruldular(her bir grupta n=14). Böylece, her tavşanda tüm greft grupları oluşturuldu.Radyolojik muayeneler operasyon sonrası, 15, 30, 45 ve 60. günlerde yapıldı. Radyolojikmuayeneler sonucunda biyoaktif cam grubundaki kemik iyileşmesinin diğer gruplara göre daha iyiolduğu saptandı.Sonuç olarak, biyoaktif camın kemik iyileşmesini erken dönemde anlamlı şekilde arttırdığı ve iyi birkemik grefti olarak güvenle kullanılabileceği kanaatine varılmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarının kemik greftikullanımının zorunlu olduğu klinik olgularda greft materyali seçiminde kolaylık sağlayacağı, kısasürede daha iyi iyileşmenin elde edilmesi ile hasta refahına katkıda bulunacağı düşünülmektedir.

Radiological Comparison of Effects of Bioactive Glass, Mineralized and Demineralized Bone Matrix on Bone Healing

In this study, it was aimed to compare the radiological findings of the effects of bioactive glass, mineralized bone matrix (MBM), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) on healing of experimental bone defects in rabbits. Fourteen, 4-5-months old, male New Zealand rabbits were used in the study. The rabbits were randomly divided into 2 main groups for 30 and 60 day follow-ups and each group contained 7 randomly selected rabbits. Under general anesthesia, a total of four defects, two on the proximal metaphysis of both tibia of each rabbits were created. Fourteen of 56 bone defects created were left empty to serve as the control group. The other defects were filled with bioactive glass, MBM and DBM (n=14 in each group). Thus, all graft groups were formed in each rabbit. Radiological examinations were performed immediately after the operation, and on 15th, 30th, 45th ,and 60th days. As a result of the radiological examinations, bone healing in the bioactive glass group was determined to be better than the other groups. As a result, bioactive glass was observed to significantly increase the early term bone healing, which suggest that it can safely be used as a good graft. It is considered that the results of the study will contribute to patient welfare by providing better healing in a short time and facilitating the choosing of the graft material in clinical cases where the use of bone graft is necessary.

PDF

___

Bulut S, Durmuş AS, Köm M, Çobanoğlu B. Köpeklerde femur ve tibia diyafizinin deneysel maddi kayıplı kırıklarında ulna distalinin segmental kortikal otogref olarak kullanımı. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg 2001; 7: 77- 85.
Durmuş AS, Ünsaldı E. Köpeklerde deneysel maddi kayıplı femur kırıklarında koral ve spongiyöz otogref uygulamalarının karşılaştırması. FÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2001; 15: 101-112.
Greenwald AS, Boden SD, Goldberg VM, et al. Bone-graft substitutes: Facts, fictions and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 98-103.
Ceyhan T, Günay V, Çapaoğlu A, Sayrak H, Karaca Ç. Production and characterization of a glass-ceramic biomaterial and in vitro and in vivo evaluation of its biological effects. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2007; 41: 307-313.
Özsoy S. Biyoseramikler: Hydroxyapatit biocam. Veteriner Cerrahi Dergisi 1996; 2: 10-13.
Habraken WJEM, Wolke JGC, Jansen JA. Ceramic composites as matrices and scaffolds for drug delivery in tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2007; 59: 234- 248.
Mellonig JT. Freeze-dried bone allografts in periodontal reconstructive surgery. Dent Clin North Am 1991; 35: 505.
Khan SN, Tomin E, Lane JM. Clinical applications of bone graft substitutes. Orthop Clin Nort Am 2000; 31: 389-398.
Atay MH, Kaya B, Atay Ç, Arslan SG. Demineralize kemik matriksinin osteoindüktivitesini etkileyen etmenler. Türk Oral ve Maksillofasiyal Cerrahi Dergisi 2005; 9: 48-52.
Kawcak CE, Trotter GW, Powers BE, et al. Comparison of bone healing demineralized bone matrix and autogenous cancellous bone in horses. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 218-226.
Lane JM, Sandhu HS. Current approaches to experimental bone grafting. Orthop Clin North Am 1987; 18: 213-225.
Durmuş AS, Çeribaşı AO, Can HN. Koral ve demineralize kemik matriksinin kemik iyileşmesi üzerine etkileri. FÜ Sağ Bil Vet Derg 2016; 30: 131-136.
Gosain AK. Bioactive glass for bone replacement in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 590-593.
Cortez PP, Brito AF, Kapoor S, et al. The in vivo performance of an alkali-free bioactive glass for bone grafting, FastOs® BG, assessed with an ovine model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2017; 105B: 30-38.
Silver IA, Deas J, Erecinska M. Interactions of bioactive glasses with osteoblasts in vitro: Effects of 45S5 Bioglass, and 58S and 77S bioactive glasses on metabolism, intracellular ion concentrations and cell viability. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 175-185.
Sculean A, Pietruska M, Arweiler NB, Auschill TM, Nemcovsky C. Four-year results of a prospectivecontrolled clinical study evaluating healing of intra-bony defects following treatment with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 507-513.
Aitasalo K, Kinnunen I, Palmgren J, Varpula M. Repair of orbital floor fractures with bioactive glass implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 12: 1390-1395.
Duskova M, Kotova M, Sedlackova K, Leamerova E, Horak J. Bone reconstruction of the maxillary alveolus for subsequent insertion of a dental implant in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18: 630-638.
Schmitt JM, Buck DC, Joh SP, Lynch SE, Hollinger JO. Comparison of porous bone mineral and biologically active glass in critical-sized defects. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 1043-1053.
MacNeill SR, Cobb CM, Rapley JW, Glaros AG, Spencer P. In vivo comparison of synthetic osseous graft materials. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 239-245.
Sakallıoğlu U, Yavuz Ü. İnterproksimal kemikiçi defektlerin rekonstrüksiyonunda biyoaktif cam içerikli alloplastların etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üni Diş Hek Fak Derg 2006; 30: 17-24.
Pappalardo S, Guarnieri R. Efficacy of Platelet-RichPlasma (PRP) and Highly Purified Bovine Xenograft (Laddec®) combination in bone regeneration after cyst enucleation: Radiological and histological evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013; 4: e3.
Moon KN, Kim SG, Oh JS, et al. Evaluation of bone formation after grafting with deproteinized bovine bone and mineralized allogenic bone. Implant Dent 2015; 24: 101-105.
Atay MH, Yılmaz FR. İki farklı kemik greftinin histopatolojik olarak incelenmesi. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 2005; 32: 172-178.
Bigham AS, Shadkhast M, Bigham Sadegh A, et al. Evaluation of osteoinduction properties of the demineralized bovine foetal growth plate powder as a new xenogenic biomaterial in rat. Res Vet Sci 2011; 91: 306- 310.
Lindholm TC, Gao TJ, Lindholm TS. Granular hydroxyapatite and allogenic demineralized bone matrix in rabbit skull defect augmentation. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1993; 207: 91-98.
Keith Jd JR. Localized ridge augmentation with a block allograft followed by secondary implant placement: A case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24: 11- 17.
Leonetti JA, Koup R. Localized maxillary ridge augmentation with a block allograft for dental implant placement: Case report. Implant Dent 2003; 12: 217-226.