Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects
Regeneration of critical bone defects requires the use of biomaterials. The incorporation of osteoinductive agents, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), improves bone formation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 in combination with different materials for bone regeneration i...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BioMed research international 2022-04, Vol.2022, p.6281641-15 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 15 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 6281641 |
| container_title | BioMed research international |
| container_volume | 2022 |
| creator | Uribe, Francisca Vásquez, Bélgica Alister, Juan Pablo Olate, Sergio |
| description | Regeneration of critical bone defects requires the use of biomaterials. The incorporation of osteoinductive agents, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), improves bone formation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 in combination with different materials for bone regeneration in critical-sized rat calvarial defects. This was an experimental animal study using 30 rats. In each rat, two 5-mm critical-size defects were made in the calvaria (60 bone defects in total) using a trephine. All rats were randomized to one of the six groups: control (C), autograft + rhBMP-2 (A), absorbable collagen sponge + rhBMP-2 (ACS), β-tricalcium phosphate + rhBMP-2 (B-TCP), bovine xenograft + rhBMP-2 (B), and hydroxyapatite + rhBMP-2 (HA). The outcome was assessed after 4 and 8 weeks using histological description and the histological bone healing scale. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests, with a p-value set at 0.05. The average bone healing scores per group were as follows: C group, 12.5; A group, 26.5; ACS group, 18.8; B-TCP group, 26.2; HA group, 20.9; and B group, 20.9. The C group showed a significant difference between weeks 4 and 8 (p=0.032). Among the 4-week groups, the C group showed a significant difference compared to A (p=0.001), ACS (p=0.017), and B-TCP (p=0.005) groups. The 8-week experimental group did not show any significant differences between the groups. The 5-mm critical size defect in rat calvaria requires the use of bone biomaterials to heal at 4 and 8 weeks. rhBMP-2, as applied in this study, showed no difference in new bone formation when combined with bovine, B-TCP, or HA biomaterials. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1155/2022/6281641 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9061001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A702937394</galeid><sourcerecordid>A702937394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-2b3124544f1f307ef55b313e13d43e1a5187e491ceca701f8fd130e0c957f69e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctvEzEQxlcIRKvSG2dkiQsSLPX4sd69ILVbXlIRqMDZcpxx4mrXTu1NI_jrcUgIjwM-2CPPbz7P-Kuqx0BfAkh5xihjZw1roRFwrzpmHETdgID7h5jzo-o05xtaVsFo1zysjriUtFO0Pa42fRxXJvkcA4mOpOXFh081Iz6Qkpj5YCZfMhs_Lcmldw4Tholc-DiaCZM3QyYuJnKNCwyYdnCpvTYT6c1wV4QN6ZOfvDVD_dl_R3KJDu2UH1UPXKnG0_15Un198_pL_66--vj2fX9-VVvOAGo248CEFMKB41Shk7LccAQ-F2U3ElqFogOL1igKrnVz4BSp7aRyTYf8pHq1012tZyPObWk_mUGvkh9N-qaj8frvTPBLvYh3uqMNUApF4NleIMXbNeZJjz5bHAYTMK6zZk1DgZaPVQV9-g96E9cplPF-UkoK2vLf1MIMqH1wsbxrt6L6XFHWccU7UagXO8qmmHNCd2gZqN5ar7fW6731BX_y55gH-JfRBXi-A5Y-zM3G_1_uB-VetB0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2660754083</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Uribe, Francisca ; Vásquez, Bélgica ; Alister, Juan Pablo ; Olate, Sergio</creator><contributor>Michalakis, Konstantinos ; Konstantinos Michalakis</contributor><creatorcontrib>Uribe, Francisca ; Vásquez, Bélgica ; Alister, Juan Pablo ; Olate, Sergio ; Michalakis, Konstantinos ; Konstantinos Michalakis</creatorcontrib><description>Regeneration of critical bone defects requires the use of biomaterials. The incorporation of osteoinductive agents, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), improves bone formation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 in combination with different materials for bone regeneration in critical-sized rat calvarial defects. This was an experimental animal study using 30 rats. In each rat, two 5-mm critical-size defects were made in the calvaria (60 bone defects in total) using a trephine. All rats were randomized to one of the six groups: control (C), autograft + rhBMP-2 (A), absorbable collagen sponge + rhBMP-2 (ACS), β-tricalcium phosphate + rhBMP-2 (B-TCP), bovine xenograft + rhBMP-2 (B), and hydroxyapatite + rhBMP-2 (HA). The outcome was assessed after 4 and 8 weeks using histological description and the histological bone healing scale. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests, with a p-value set at 0.05. The average bone healing scores per group were as follows: C group, 12.5; A group, 26.5; ACS group, 18.8; B-TCP group, 26.2; HA group, 20.9; and B group, 20.9. The C group showed a significant difference between weeks 4 and 8 (p=0.032). Among the 4-week groups, the C group showed a significant difference compared to A (p=0.001), ACS (p=0.017), and B-TCP (p=0.005) groups. The 8-week experimental group did not show any significant differences between the groups. The 5-mm critical size defect in rat calvaria requires the use of bone biomaterials to heal at 4 and 8 weeks. rhBMP-2, as applied in this study, showed no difference in new bone formation when combined with bovine, B-TCP, or HA biomaterials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2314-6133</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2314-6141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2022/6281641</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35509708</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Hindawi</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology ; Biomaterials ; Biomedical materials ; Bone biomaterials ; Bone growth ; Bone healing ; Bone morphogenetic protein 2 ; Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 - pharmacology ; Bone Morphogenetic Proteins ; Bone Regeneration ; Calcium phosphates ; Calvaria ; Care and treatment ; Cattle ; Collagen ; Collagen - pharmacology ; Craniofacial abnormalities ; Defects ; Healing ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Hydroxyapatite ; Laboratory animals ; Osteogenesis ; Physiological aspects ; Proteins ; Rats ; Recombinant Proteins - pharmacology ; Regeneration ; Regeneration (physiology) ; Skull ; Skull - pathology ; Statistical analysis ; Surgery, Experimental ; Surgical research ; Transforming Growth Factor beta ; Tricalcium phosphate ; Xenografts ; Xenotransplantation</subject><ispartof>BioMed research international, 2022-04, Vol.2022, p.6281641-15</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2022 Francisca Uribe et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Francisca Uribe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Francisca Uribe et al. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-2b3124544f1f307ef55b313e13d43e1a5187e491ceca701f8fd130e0c957f69e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-2b3124544f1f307ef55b313e13d43e1a5187e491ceca701f8fd130e0c957f69e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1341-4005 ; 0000-0001-8153-0676 ; 0000-0002-4106-3548</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9061001/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9061001/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,886,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35509708$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Michalakis, Konstantinos</contributor><contributor>Konstantinos Michalakis</contributor><creatorcontrib>Uribe, Francisca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vásquez, Bélgica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alister, Juan Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olate, Sergio</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects</title><title>BioMed research international</title><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><description>Regeneration of critical bone defects requires the use of biomaterials. The incorporation of osteoinductive agents, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), improves bone formation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 in combination with different materials for bone regeneration in critical-sized rat calvarial defects. This was an experimental animal study using 30 rats. In each rat, two 5-mm critical-size defects were made in the calvaria (60 bone defects in total) using a trephine. All rats were randomized to one of the six groups: control (C), autograft + rhBMP-2 (A), absorbable collagen sponge + rhBMP-2 (ACS), β-tricalcium phosphate + rhBMP-2 (B-TCP), bovine xenograft + rhBMP-2 (B), and hydroxyapatite + rhBMP-2 (HA). The outcome was assessed after 4 and 8 weeks using histological description and the histological bone healing scale. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests, with a p-value set at 0.05. The average bone healing scores per group were as follows: C group, 12.5; A group, 26.5; ACS group, 18.8; B-TCP group, 26.2; HA group, 20.9; and B group, 20.9. The C group showed a significant difference between weeks 4 and 8 (p=0.032). Among the 4-week groups, the C group showed a significant difference compared to A (p=0.001), ACS (p=0.017), and B-TCP (p=0.005) groups. The 8-week experimental group did not show any significant differences between the groups. The 5-mm critical size defect in rat calvaria requires the use of bone biomaterials to heal at 4 and 8 weeks. rhBMP-2, as applied in this study, showed no difference in new bone formation when combined with bovine, B-TCP, or HA biomaterials.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology</subject><subject>Biomaterials</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Bone biomaterials</subject><subject>Bone growth</subject><subject>Bone healing</subject><subject>Bone morphogenetic protein 2</subject><subject>Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bone Morphogenetic Proteins</subject><subject>Bone Regeneration</subject><subject>Calcium phosphates</subject><subject>Calvaria</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Collagen</subject><subject>Collagen - pharmacology</subject><subject>Craniofacial abnormalities</subject><subject>Defects</subject><subject>Healing</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydroxyapatite</subject><subject>Laboratory animals</subject><subject>Osteogenesis</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Recombinant Proteins - pharmacology</subject><subject>Regeneration</subject><subject>Regeneration (physiology)</subject><subject>Skull</subject><subject>Skull - pathology</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgery, Experimental</subject><subject>Surgical research</subject><subject>Transforming Growth Factor beta</subject><subject>Tricalcium phosphate</subject><subject>Xenografts</subject><subject>Xenotransplantation</subject><issn>2314-6133</issn><issn>2314-6141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RHX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctvEzEQxlcIRKvSG2dkiQsSLPX4sd69ILVbXlIRqMDZcpxx4mrXTu1NI_jrcUgIjwM-2CPPbz7P-Kuqx0BfAkh5xihjZw1roRFwrzpmHETdgID7h5jzo-o05xtaVsFo1zysjriUtFO0Pa42fRxXJvkcA4mOpOXFh081Iz6Qkpj5YCZfMhs_Lcmldw4Tholc-DiaCZM3QyYuJnKNCwyYdnCpvTYT6c1wV4QN6ZOfvDVD_dl_R3KJDu2UH1UPXKnG0_15Un198_pL_66--vj2fX9-VVvOAGo248CEFMKB41Shk7LccAQ-F2U3ElqFogOL1igKrnVz4BSp7aRyTYf8pHq1012tZyPObWk_mUGvkh9N-qaj8frvTPBLvYh3uqMNUApF4NleIMXbNeZJjz5bHAYTMK6zZk1DgZaPVQV9-g96E9cplPF-UkoK2vLf1MIMqH1wsbxrt6L6XFHWccU7UagXO8qmmHNCd2gZqN5ar7fW6731BX_y55gH-JfRBXi-A5Y-zM3G_1_uB-VetB0</recordid><startdate>20220425</startdate><enddate>20220425</enddate><creator>Uribe, Francisca</creator><creator>Vásquez, Bélgica</creator><creator>Alister, Juan Pablo</creator><creator>Olate, Sergio</creator><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1341-4005</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-0676</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4106-3548</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220425</creationdate><title>Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects</title><author>Uribe, Francisca ; Vásquez, Bélgica ; Alister, Juan Pablo ; Olate, Sergio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3211-2b3124544f1f307ef55b313e13d43e1a5187e491ceca701f8fd130e0c957f69e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology</topic><topic>Biomaterials</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Bone biomaterials</topic><topic>Bone growth</topic><topic>Bone healing</topic><topic>Bone morphogenetic protein 2</topic><topic>Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bone Morphogenetic Proteins</topic><topic>Bone Regeneration</topic><topic>Calcium phosphates</topic><topic>Calvaria</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Collagen</topic><topic>Collagen - pharmacology</topic><topic>Craniofacial abnormalities</topic><topic>Defects</topic><topic>Healing</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydroxyapatite</topic><topic>Laboratory animals</topic><topic>Osteogenesis</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Recombinant Proteins - pharmacology</topic><topic>Regeneration</topic><topic>Regeneration (physiology)</topic><topic>Skull</topic><topic>Skull - pathology</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgery, Experimental</topic><topic>Surgical research</topic><topic>Transforming Growth Factor beta</topic><topic>Tricalcium phosphate</topic><topic>Xenografts</topic><topic>Xenotransplantation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Uribe, Francisca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vásquez, Bélgica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alister, Juan Pablo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olate, Sergio</creatorcontrib><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East & Africa Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Uribe, Francisca</au><au>Vásquez, Bélgica</au><au>Alister, Juan Pablo</au><au>Olate, Sergio</au><au>Michalakis, Konstantinos</au><au>Konstantinos Michalakis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects</atitle><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><date>2022-04-25</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>2022</volume><spage>6281641</spage><epage>15</epage><pages>6281641-15</pages><issn>2314-6133</issn><eissn>2314-6141</eissn><abstract>Regeneration of critical bone defects requires the use of biomaterials. The incorporation of osteoinductive agents, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), improves bone formation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rhBMP-2 in combination with different materials for bone regeneration in critical-sized rat calvarial defects. This was an experimental animal study using 30 rats. In each rat, two 5-mm critical-size defects were made in the calvaria (60 bone defects in total) using a trephine. All rats were randomized to one of the six groups: control (C), autograft + rhBMP-2 (A), absorbable collagen sponge + rhBMP-2 (ACS), β-tricalcium phosphate + rhBMP-2 (B-TCP), bovine xenograft + rhBMP-2 (B), and hydroxyapatite + rhBMP-2 (HA). The outcome was assessed after 4 and 8 weeks using histological description and the histological bone healing scale. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests, with a p-value set at 0.05. The average bone healing scores per group were as follows: C group, 12.5; A group, 26.5; ACS group, 18.8; B-TCP group, 26.2; HA group, 20.9; and B group, 20.9. The C group showed a significant difference between weeks 4 and 8 (p=0.032). Among the 4-week groups, the C group showed a significant difference compared to A (p=0.001), ACS (p=0.017), and B-TCP (p=0.005) groups. The 8-week experimental group did not show any significant differences between the groups. The 5-mm critical size defect in rat calvaria requires the use of bone biomaterials to heal at 4 and 8 weeks. rhBMP-2, as applied in this study, showed no difference in new bone formation when combined with bovine, B-TCP, or HA biomaterials.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Hindawi</pub><pmid>35509708</pmid><doi>10.1155/2022/6281641</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1341-4005</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-0676</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4106-3548</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2314-6133 |
| ispartof | BioMed research international, 2022-04, Vol.2022, p.6281641-15 |
| issn | 2314-6133 2314-6141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9061001 |
| source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central Open Access; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Animals Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology Biomaterials Biomedical materials Bone biomaterials Bone growth Bone healing Bone morphogenetic protein 2 Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 - pharmacology Bone Morphogenetic Proteins Bone Regeneration Calcium phosphates Calvaria Care and treatment Cattle Collagen Collagen - pharmacology Craniofacial abnormalities Defects Healing Health aspects Humans Hydroxyapatite Laboratory animals Osteogenesis Physiological aspects Proteins Rats Recombinant Proteins - pharmacology Regeneration Regeneration (physiology) Skull Skull - pathology Statistical analysis Surgery, Experimental Surgical research Transforming Growth Factor beta Tricalcium phosphate Xenografts Xenotransplantation |
| title | Comparison of rhBMP-2 in Combination with Different Biomaterials for Regeneration in Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defects |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T02%3A44%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20rhBMP-2%20in%20Combination%20with%20Different%20Biomaterials%20for%20Regeneration%20in%20Rat%20Calvaria%20Critical-Size%20Defects&rft.jtitle=BioMed%20research%20international&rft.au=Uribe,%20Francisca&rft.date=2022-04-25&rft.volume=2022&rft.spage=6281641&rft.epage=15&rft.pages=6281641-15&rft.issn=2314-6133&rft.eissn=2314-6141&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2022/6281641&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA702937394%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2660754083&rft_id=info:pmid/35509708&rft_galeid=A702937394&rfr_iscdi=true |