2015 Annual Meeting: http://www.aaoms.org/annual_meeting/2015/index.php

Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemistry Study of Different Biomaterials in Alveolar Defects

Osvaldo Magro-Filho Aracatuba, Brazil
Marcelo Rodrigues Azenha Aracatuba, Brazil
Gustavo Augusto Grossi-Oliveira Aracatuba, Brazil
Natasha Magro Ernica Aracatuba, Brazil
Bone substitutes have archieved a great importance in present researches. Among a role variety of biomaterials, bioglass is a new option with very few studies investigating bone response to it. To evaluate alveolar bone repair with Crystalline Biosilicate and Bioglass45S5 through histomorphometric and immunohistochemistry analysis. Fourty-five rats underwent incisor extraction surgery and were divided into 3 groups: Group 1-alveoli filled with blood clot; Group 2-alveoli filled with Crystalline Biosilicate; Group 3-alveoli filled with Bioglass45S5. After 7, 14 and 28 days the animals were sacrificed and histomorphometric (histological and histometric) and immunohistochemical (osteopontin and osteocalcin) analysis were measured. The comparison of the results was performed using the statistical program Assistat 2013 for Windows by Analysis of Variance and Mann-Whitney tests, with significant results being found when p≤0.05. During the 7-day period, Group 1 showed better and significantly higher results in bone formation than Groups 2 (p=0.02) and 3 (p=0.04), with no difference between Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05). After 14 days the statistical differences remained between the Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.02) and Group 3 (p=0.03). No statiscally difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05). At 28 days, the results were similar to previous periods with Group 1 presenting the best results compared to Groups 2 (p=0.03) and Group 3 (p=0.03), with no difference between Groups 2 and 3. In this period Group 1 presented 83.5% of the studied area filled with new bone while the animals implanted with Crystalline Biosilicate and Bioglass45S5 presented 59.4% and 60.5% respectively. Protein expressions demonstrated similar results when comparing the two tested biomaterials with equal scores. Both tested biomaterials presented favorable results in bone repair, excellent behavior without resorption, and can be safely used in the dental clinic.

Azenha MR, Peitl O, Barros VM. Bone response to biosilicates with different crystal phases. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21 (5): 383-9.

Peitl-Filho O, LaTorre GP, Hench LL. Effect of crystallization on apatite-layer formation of bioactive bioglass 45s5. J Biomed Mater Res 1996; 30:509-14.