RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of alpha-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP) cement combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on osteogenesis, and to compare the results with use of PRP alone. METHODS: A bilateral defect was produced in rat femurs and was filled with one of two types of treatments (PRP or α-TCP + PRP). The outcomes were evaluated after four and eight weeks. Radiographic images provided values for the lesion area, and histology (picrosirius staining) indicated the area of new bone formation. RESULTS: The means relating to the lesion area of the α-TCP + PRP group (2.64 ± 2.07 and 1.91 ± 0.93 mm(2), after four and eight weeks, respectively) showed numerically better but non-significant results (p > 0.05) than those seen in the PRP group (5.59 mm 2 ± 2.69 and 3.23 ± 1.46 mm 2, after four and eight weeks, respectively). The mean new bone formation rates were 62.7% ± 12.1 and 79.01% ± 6.25 in the PRP group, and 73.3% ± 12.7 and 85.86% ± 10.45 in α-TCP + PRP group, after four and eight weeks, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The data from this study suggest that treatment with α-TCP cement combined with PRP does not show any significant difference in comparison with PRP alone. However, there is a possible early effect on bone regeneration when the two biomaterials are applied together.
RESUMO
OBJETIVOS: Avaliar o efeito do cimento α-TCP combinado com PRP sobre a osteogênese, comparando os resultados com PRP utilizado isoladamente. MÉTODOS: Foi confeccionado defeito bilateral no fêmur de ratos e preenchido com um dos dois tipos de tratamentos (PRP ou α-TCP+PRP), sendo avaliado em quatro e oito semanas. As imagens radiográficas forneceram valores da área da lesão, e a histologia (coloração Picrosirius) indicou a área de neoformação óssea. RESULTADOS: As médias referentes à área de lesão do grupo α-TCP+PRP (2,64mm² ± 2,07 e 1,91mm² ± 0,93; quatro e oito semanas, respectivamente) demonstraram numericamente melhores resultados, porém não significativos (p > 0,05), em comparação com aqueles observados no grupo PRP (5,59mm² ± 2,69 e 3,23mm² ± 1,46; quatro e oito semanas, respectivamente). As médias de neoformação óssea foram de 62,7% ± 12,1% e 79,01% ± 6,25 no grupo PRP, e 73,3% ± 12,7 e 85,86% ± 10,45 no grupo α-TCP+PRP, em quatro e oito semanas, respectivamente (p > 0,05). CONCLUSÃO: Os dados deste estudo sugerem que o tratamento com cimento α-TCP combinado com PRP não demonstra diferença significativa quando comparado ao PRP isolado. Entretanto, há um possível efeito precoce sobre a regeneração óssea quando os dois biomateriais são aplicados em conjunto.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of alpha-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP) cement combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on osteogenesis, and to compare the results with use of PRP alone. METHODS: A bilateral defect was produced in rat femurs and was filled with one of two types of treatments (PRP or α-TCP + PRP). The outcomes were evaluated after four and eight weeks. Radiographic images provided values for the lesion area, and histology (picrosirius staining) indicated the area of new bone formation. RESULTS: The means relating to the lesion area of the α-TCP + PRP group (2.64 ± 2.07 and 1.91 ± 0.93 mm², after four and eight weeks, respectively) showed numerically better but non-significant results (p > 0.05) than those seen in the PRP group (5.59 mm ² ± 2.69 and 3.23 ± 1.46 mm ², after four and eight weeks, respectively). The mean new bone formation rates were 62.7% ± 12.1 and 79.01% ± 6.25 in the PRP group, and 73.3% ± 12.7 and 85.86% ± 10.45 in α-TCP + PRP group, after four and eight weeks, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The data from this study suggest that treatment with α-TCP cement combined with PRP does not show any significant difference in comparison with PRP alone. However, there is a possible early effect on bone regeneration when the two biomaterials are applied together.
