Diseño y comparativa de biomateriales para el tratamiento de defectos óseos. Estudio de su comportamiento in vivo en modelo animal de conejo / Desing and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behavior in a rabbit model

Objetivo: Comparar in vivo la capacidad de formación ósea de dos tipos de biomateriales diseñados como sustitutivos óseos respecto a autoinjerto de cresta iliaca, uno basado en carbonatohidroxiapatita y otro en vidrio mesoporoso bioactivo. Material y método: Estudio experimental compuesto por 14 conejos de Nueva Zelanda hembras adultas donde se realizó un defecto crítico en hueso radio. La muestra fue dividida en cuatro grupos: defecto sin material, con autoinjerto de cresta iliaca, con soporte de carbonatohidroxiapatita y con soporte de vidrio mesoporoso bioactivo. Se realizaron estudios seriados de radiología simple a las 2, 4, 6 y 12 semanas y estudio de micro-TC a eutanasia a las 6 y 12 semanas. Resultados: En el estudio de radiología simple, el grupo de autoinjerto mostró las mayores puntuaciones de formación ósea (7,5 puntos). Ambos grupos de biomateriales presentaron formación ósea similar (5,3 y 6 puntos, respectivamente) y mayor al defecto sin material (4 puntos), pero siempre menor que el grupo de autoinjerto. Los resultados del estudio de micro-TC mostraron el mayor volumen de hueso en el área de estudio en el grupo de autoinjerto. Los grupos con sustitutivos óseos presentaron mayor volumen de hueso que el grupo sin material, pero siempre menor que en el grupo de autoinjerto. Conclusiones: Ambos soportes parecen favorecer la formación ósea pero no son capaces de reproducir las características del autoinjerto. Por sus diferentes características macroscópicas cada uno podría ser adecuado para un tipo diferente de defecto.(AU)

Aim: Compare bone formation capacity in vivo of two types of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxyapatites and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass. Materials and methods: Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite support, and with bioactive mesoporous glass support. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks. Results: In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than in the autograft group. Conclusion: Both supports seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.(AU)

[Translated article] Design and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behaviour in a rabbit model / Diseño y comparativa de biomateriales para el tratamiento de defectos óseos. Estudio de su comportamiento in vivo en modelo animal de conejo

Objetivo: Comparar in vivo la capacidad de formación ósea de dos tipos de biomateriales diseñados como sustitutivos óseos respecto a autoinjerto de cresta iliaca, uno basado en carbonatohidroxiapatita y otro en vidrio mesoporoso bioactivo. Material y método: Estudio experimental compuesto por 14 conejos de Nueva Zelanda hembras adultas donde se realizó un defecto crítico en hueso radio. La muestra fue dividida en cuatro grupos: defecto sin material, con autoinjerto de cresta iliaca, con soporte de carbonatohidroxiapatita y con soporte de vidrio mesoporoso bioactivo. Se realizaron estudios seriados de radiología simple a las 2, 4, 6 y 12 semanas y estudio de micro-TC a eutanasia a las 6 y 12 semanas. Resultados: En el estudio de radiología simple, el grupo de autoinjerto mostró las mayores puntuaciones de formación ósea (7,5 puntos). Ambos grupos de biomateriales presentaron formación ósea similar (5,3 y 6 puntos, respectivamente) y mayor al defecto sin material (4 puntos), pero siempre menor que el grupo de autoinjerto. Los resultados del estudio de micro-TC mostraron el mayor volumen de hueso en el área de estudio en el grupo de autoinjerto. Los grupos con sustitutivos óseos presentaron mayor volumen de hueso que el grupo sin material, pero siempre menor que en el grupo de autoinjerto. Conclusiones: Ambos soportes parecen favorecer la formación ósea pero no son capaces de reproducir las características del autoinjerto. Por sus diferentes características macroscópicas cada uno podría ser adecuado para un tipo diferente de defecto.(AU)

Aim: Compare bone formation capacity in vivo of two types of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxyapatites and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass. Materials and methods: Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite support, and with bioactive mesoporous glass support. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks. Results: In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than in the autograft group. Conclusion: Both supports seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.(AU)

[Translated article] Design and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behaviour in a rabbit model.

AIM: To compare the in vivo bone formation capacity of of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxiapatite and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite scaffold, and with bioactive mesoporous glass scaffold. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than the autograft group. CONCLUSION: Both scaffolds seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.

Desing and comparison of bone substitutes. Study of in vivo behavior in a rabbit model. / Diseño y comparativa de biomateriales para el tratamiento de defectos óseos. Estudio de su comportamiento in vivo en modelo animal de conejo.

AIM: Compare bone formation capacity in vivo of two types of biomaterials designed as bone substitutes with respect to iliac crest autograft, one based on carbonate hydroxyapatites and the other one on bioactive mesoporous glass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental study consisting on 14 adult female New Zeland rabbits where a critical defect was made in the rabbit radius bone. The sample was divided into four groups: defect without material, with iliac crest autograft, with carbonatehydroxyapatite support, and with bioactive mesoporous glass support. Serial X-ray studies were carried out at 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and a microCT study at euthanasia at 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: In the X-ray study, autograft group showed the highest bone formation scores. Both groups of biomaterials presented bone formation similar and greater than the defect without material, but always less than in the autograft group. The results of the microCT study showed the largest bone volume in the study area in the autograft group. The groups with bone substitutes presented greater bone volume than the group without material but always less than in the autograft group. CONCLUSION: Both supports seem to promote bone formation but are not capable of reproducing the characteristics of autograft. Due to their different macroscopic characteristics, each one could be suitable for a different type of defect.