We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Comparison of the osteoconductive properties of three particulate bone fillers in a rabbit model: allograft, calcium carbonate (Biocoral®) and S53P4 bioactive glass.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 2013 September
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the osteoconductivity and suitability of three biomaterials used as particulate fillers; S53P4 bioactive glass, allogeneic fresh frozen bone and coral-derived calcium carbonate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Materials were implanted into drill-holes in the femoral condyles of adult rabbits. Follow-ups were performed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Host-response, osteoconductivity, bonding and filler-effect were evaluated by SEM, EDXA and histology and histomorphometry to evaluate.
RESULTS: All three materials were found to be biocompatible and osteoconductive. Defects filled with allograft seemed to have more bone at 24 weeks, although no statistically significant difference in new bone growth was found. In earlier time points, coral, however, was observed to degrade more quickly, leaving more empty space in the defects, thus making it a less suitable filler for cavitary defects.
CONCLUSION: At all time points there was less filler material (i.e. biomaterial and new bone) in coral-filled defects than in BAG or allograft filled defects (p < 0.05).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Materials were implanted into drill-holes in the femoral condyles of adult rabbits. Follow-ups were performed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Host-response, osteoconductivity, bonding and filler-effect were evaluated by SEM, EDXA and histology and histomorphometry to evaluate.
RESULTS: All three materials were found to be biocompatible and osteoconductive. Defects filled with allograft seemed to have more bone at 24 weeks, although no statistically significant difference in new bone growth was found. In earlier time points, coral, however, was observed to degrade more quickly, leaving more empty space in the defects, thus making it a less suitable filler for cavitary defects.
CONCLUSION: At all time points there was less filler material (i.e. biomaterial and new bone) in coral-filled defects than in BAG or allograft filled defects (p < 0.05).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app