Comparing the Healing Abilities of Fluorapatite and Hydroxyapatite Ceramics in Regenerating Bone Tissue: An In Vivo Study

Abstract

Some reports in the literature show the advantages of fluoride-containing apatite ceramics over hydroxyapatite (HAP), at least in some aspects. While HAP has been used extensively in the treatment of bone defects, fluoridated apatite has hardly been tested in vivo. In order to verify the biological properties of fluoride-doped apatite and to assess its therapeutic potential, we synthesized fluorapatite (FAP) and applied it as a filling in bone defects of experimental animals (rabbits). The treatment effects were evaluated on extracted bones after 3 and 6 months from implantation using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), radiography (X-ray) and histological staining. The study proved the integration between FAP and the bone tissue, thus indicating its stimulating effect on new bone formation and mineralization. The results achieved after 3 months of treatment were difficult to interpret unequivocally and suggested the transient delay in FAP integration of bone in comparison with HAP. The reasons for this phenomenon are unclear. Most likely, these differences between FAP and HAP resulted mainly from the different porosities, densities and ionic reactivity of the ceramics, which in our opinion affected their solubility, integration and degree of bone tissue resorption. However, it was shown that 6 months after implantation, similar level of bone defect regeneration was achieved for both FAP and HAP. In this article, we present our hypothesis concerning the basis of this phenomenon.