Critical‐size defects reconstruction with four different bone grafts associated with e‐PTFE membrane: A histomorphometric experimental in vivo study

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThe goal of this study was to assess the newly formed bone and the remnant biomaterial by comparing four different bone grafts used to treat critical‐size defects, associated or not with the non‐resorbable membrane.Materials and MethodsTwo calvaria critical‐size bone defects were created in 50 male Wistar rats. They were divided into blood (G1), autogenous (G2), bioglass (G3), hydroxyapatite (G4), and xenograft (G5) groups, associated or not with e‐PTFE. The experimental periods were 15 and 45 days. Sections were prepared for histomorphometric assessment. All data were analyzed by the mixed‐effects model with multiple comparisons (significance level, p < .05).ResultsA similar level of new bone was observed for all groups, associated with a high level of vascularization. G1 and G2 ensured sovereignty over the greater quantity of new bone. A non‐significant result was reported comparing groups with and without membranes. No significant result was found between the experimental synthetic biomaterials (G3 and G4). G5L achieved 22.0% of new bone after 45 days (p > .05). All groups had a stable volume of biomaterial kept in the short term (p > .05). G2 was the best material for new bone formation and final volume of biomaterial, followed by G4 < G5 < G3. Thus, it is possible that G4 had a better degradation profile among the experimental groups.ConclusionsThe best results were found in the autogenous group, with higher resorption and integration; non‐significative new bone was found among the experimental groups; and the regeneration of critical bone defects using an e‐PTFE barrier did not present significant results on new bone formation.