Evaluation of Hard and Soft Tissue Responses to Four Different Generation Bioresorbable Materials-Poly-l-Lactic Acid (PLLA), Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (PLLA/PGA), Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid (u-HA/PLLA) and Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (u-HA/PLLA/PGA) in Maxillofacial Surgery: An In-Vivo Animal Study
-
Published:2023-11-27
Issue:23
Volume:16
Page:7379
-
ISSN:1996-1944
-
Container-title:Materials
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Materials
Author:
Ayasaka Kentaro1, Ramanathan Mrunalini1, Huy Ngo Xuan2, Shijirbold Ankhtsetseg1, Okui Tatsuo1, Tatsumi Hiroto1, Kotani Tatsuhito1, Shimamura Yukiho1, Morioka Reon1, Kanno Takahiro1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, Izumo 693-8501, Shimane, Japan 2. Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Thong Nhat Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
Abstract
Bone stabilization using osteosynthesis devices is essential in maxillofacial surgery. Owing to numerous disadvantages, bioresorbable materials are preferred over titanium for osteofixation in certain procedures. The biomaterials used for osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery have been subdivided into four generations. No study has compared the tissue responses generated by four generations of biomaterials and the feasibility of using these biomaterials in different maxillofacial surgeries. We conducted an in vivo animal study to evaluate host tissue response to four generations of implanted biomaterial sheets, namely, PLLA, PLLA/PGA, u-HA/PLLA, and u-HA/PLLA/PGA. New bone volume and pertinent biomarkers for bone regeneration, such as Runx2, osteocalcin (OCN), and the inflammatory marker CD68, were analyzed, and the expression of each biomarker was correlated with soft tissues outside the biomaterial and toward the host bone at the end of week 2 and week 10. The use of first-generation biomaterials for maxillofacial osteosynthesis is not advantageous over the use of other updated biomaterials. Second-generation biomaterials degrade faster and can be potentially used in non-stress regions, such as the midface. Third and fourth-generation biomaterials possess bioactive/osteoconductivity improved strength. Application of third-generation biomaterials can be considered panfacially. Fourth-generation biomaterials can be worth considering applying at midface due to the shorter degradation period.
Funder
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS KAKENHI
Subject
General Materials Science
Reference80 articles.
1. Sukegawa, S., Kanno, T., Yamamoto, N., Nakano, K., Takabatake, K., Kawai, H., Nagatsuka, H., and Furuki, Y. (2019). Biomechanical Loading Comparison between Titanium and Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-L-Lactide Plate System for Fixation of Mandibular Subcondylar Fractures. Materials, 13. 2. From rigid bone plate fixation to stable dynamic osteosynthesis in mandibular and craniomaxillo-facial surgery: Historical evolution of concepts and technical developments;Dang;J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.,2019 3. Gareb, B., van Bakelen, N.B., Buijs, G.J., Jansma, J., de Visscher, J.G.A.M., Hoppenreijs, T.J.M., Bergsma, J.E., van Minnen, B., Stegenga, B., and Bos, R.R.M. (2017). Comparison of the long-term clinical performance of a biodegradable and a titanium fixation system in maxillofacial surgery: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 11. 4. Gareb, B., Van Bakelen, N.B., Vissink, A., Bos, R.R.M., and Van Minnen, B. (2022). Titanium or Biodegradable Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Surgery? In Vitro and In Vivo Performances. Polymers, 7. 5. Understanding the basis of medical use of poly-lactide-based resorbable polymers and composites—A review of the clinical and metabolic impact;Vacaras;Drug Metab. Rev.,2019
|
|