Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models
Repairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investiga...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-08-01
|
| Series: | Life |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/14/9/1097 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850260623882977280 |
|---|---|
| author | Alina Ioana Ardelean Sorin Marian Mârza Raluca Marica Mădălina Florina Dragomir Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan Mărioara Moldovan Paula Maria Pașca Liviu Oana |
| author_facet | Alina Ioana Ardelean Sorin Marian Mârza Raluca Marica Mădălina Florina Dragomir Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan Mărioara Moldovan Paula Maria Pașca Liviu Oana |
| author_sort | Alina Ioana Ardelean |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Repairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investigate the osteogenic potential and toxicological tolerance of the bioproducts through histopathology and computed tomography imaging analysis at 14, 28, 56, and 90 days post-implantation. The biomaterials used in the investigation consisted of a 65% bioactive salinized inorganic filler and a 25% weight organic matrix. The organic part of the biomaterial was composed of Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), HEMA (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), while the inorganic filler was composed of silica, barium glass, hydroxyapatite, and fluor aluminosilicate glass. The first findings of this research are encouraging, revealing that there is a slight difference between the groups treated with biomaterials, but it might be an effective approach for managing bone abnormalities. Material C1 exhibited a faster bone defect healing time compared to material C2, where bone fractures occurred in some individuals. It is unclear if the fractures were caused by the presence of the biomaterial C2 or whether additional variables were to blame. By the end of the research, the mice appeared to tolerate the biomaterials without exhibiting any inflammatory or rejection responses. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4635dc0c28754d55a7d8d43eddfac8fc |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2075-1729 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-08-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Life |
| spelling | doaj-art-4635dc0c28754d55a7d8d43eddfac8fc2025-08-20T01:55:37ZengMDPI AGLife2075-17292024-08-01149109710.3390/life14091097Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat ModelsAlina Ioana Ardelean0Sorin Marian Mârza1Raluca Marica2Mădălina Florina Dragomir3Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan4Mărioara Moldovan5Paula Maria Pașca6Liviu Oana7Department of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaDepartment of Veterinary Imagistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaDepartment of Surgery III, Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, RomaniaRaluca Ripan Institute for Research in Chemistry, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fantanele Street, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaClinics Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 700489 Iasi, RomaniaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaRepairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investigate the osteogenic potential and toxicological tolerance of the bioproducts through histopathology and computed tomography imaging analysis at 14, 28, 56, and 90 days post-implantation. The biomaterials used in the investigation consisted of a 65% bioactive salinized inorganic filler and a 25% weight organic matrix. The organic part of the biomaterial was composed of Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), HEMA (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), while the inorganic filler was composed of silica, barium glass, hydroxyapatite, and fluor aluminosilicate glass. The first findings of this research are encouraging, revealing that there is a slight difference between the groups treated with biomaterials, but it might be an effective approach for managing bone abnormalities. Material C1 exhibited a faster bone defect healing time compared to material C2, where bone fractures occurred in some individuals. It is unclear if the fractures were caused by the presence of the biomaterial C2 or whether additional variables were to blame. By the end of the research, the mice appeared to tolerate the biomaterials without exhibiting any inflammatory or rejection responses.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/14/9/1097sub-critical bone defect repairmentratsfemurbiomaterialcomposite cement scaffolds |
| spellingShingle | Alina Ioana Ardelean Sorin Marian Mârza Raluca Marica Mădălina Florina Dragomir Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan Mărioara Moldovan Paula Maria Pașca Liviu Oana Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models Life sub-critical bone defect repairment rats femur biomaterial composite cement scaffolds |
| title | Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models |
| title_full | Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models |
| title_short | Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models |
| title_sort | evaluation of biocomposite cements for bone defect repair in rat models |
| topic | sub-critical bone defect repairment rats femur biomaterial composite cement scaffolds |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/14/9/1097 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alinaioanaardelean evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT sorinmarianmarza evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT ralucamarica evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT madalinaflorinadragomir evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT alinaoanarusumoldovan evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT marioaramoldovan evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT paulamariapasca evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels AT liviuoana evaluationofbiocompositecementsforbonedefectrepairinratmodels |