Effect of mesoporous silica and its combination with hydroxyapatite on the regeneration of rabbit's bone defects: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND Bone volume augmentation is a routine technique used in oral implantology and periodontology. Advances in the surgical techniques and the biomaterials field have allowed a greater accessibility to these treatments. Nevertheless, dehiscence and fenestrations incidence during dental implant procedures are still common in patients with bone loss. OBJECTIVE The main objective is to evaluate in a pilot experimental study the biological response to mesoporous silica (MS) hybrid scaffolds and its regenerative capacity in different formulations. METHODS Two defects per rabbit tibia were performed (one for control and other for test) and the biomaterials tested in this study have been used to fill the bone defects, prepared in two different formulations (3D hybrid scaffolds or powdered material, in 100% pure MS form, or 50% MS with 50% hydroxyapatite (HA). Euthanasia was performed 4 months after surgery for bone histopathological study and radiographic images were acquired by computerized microtomography. RESULTS Results showed that radiographically and histopathologically pure MS formulations lead to a lower biological response, e.g when formulated with HA, the osteogenic response in terms of osteoconduction was greater. CONCLUSIONS We observed tolerance and lack of toxicity of the MS and HA, without registering any type of local or systemic allergic reaction.

[1]  G. Benic,et al.  Hard tissue changes after guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects comparing block versus particulate bone substitutes: 6 month-results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. , 2019, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  Pengfei Wei,et al.  Vancomycin- and Strontium-Loaded Microspheres with Multifunctional Activities in Antibacteria, Angiogenesis and Osteogenesis for Enhancing Infected Bone Regeneration. , 2019, ACS applied materials & interfaces.

[3]  J. L. Gómez-Amoza,et al.  Three-Dimensional Hybrid Mesoporous Scaffolds for Simvastatin Sustained Delivery with in Vitro Cell Compatibility , 2019, ACS Omega.

[4]  Piyali Das,et al.  Preparation and in vivo biocompatibility studies of different mesoporous bioactive glasses. , 2019, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[5]  Jie Wei,et al.  3D-printed scaffolds of mesoporous bioglass/gliadin/polycaprolactone ternary composite for enhancement of compressive strength, degradability, cell responses and new bone tissue ingrowth , 2018, International journal of nanomedicine.

[6]  A. García-García,et al.  Evaluation of a new tricalcium phosphate for guided bone regeneration: an experimental study in the beagle dog , 2018, Odontology.

[7]  Yufang Zhu,et al.  3D printing of ceramic-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: an overview. , 2018, Journal of materials chemistry. B.

[8]  Murugan A. Munusamy,et al.  Osteoblast response to Vitamin D3 loaded cellulose enriched hydroxyapatite Mesoporous silica nanoparticles composite. , 2018, Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie.

[9]  Wenmiao Shu,et al.  3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering , 2017, Bioactive materials.

[10]  A. A. Zadpoor,et al.  Effects of bone substitute architecture and surface properties on cell response, angiogenesis, and structure of new bone. , 2017, Journal of materials chemistry. B.

[11]  K. Zia,et al.  A review on synthesis, properties and applications of natural polymer based carrageenan blends and composites. , 2017, International journal of biological macromolecules.

[12]  Ning Li,et al.  RhBMP-2 loaded 3D-printed mesoporous silica/calcium phosphate cement porous scaffolds with enhanced vascularization and osteogenesis properties , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[13]  E. Bernotiene,et al.  Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes—different cell effects , 2016, Cytotechnology.

[14]  Huibin Li,et al.  Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Modular Cementless Stem Prostheses and Coated Cementless Long-Stem Prostheses on Bone Defect in Hip Revision Arthroplasty , 2016, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[15]  Changsheng Liu,et al.  Functionalized mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for enhanced bone tissue regeneration , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Jiacan Su,et al.  Biocompatibility, degradability, bioactivity and osteogenesis of mesoporous/macroporous scaffolds of mesoporous diopside/poly(l-lactide) composite , 2015, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[17]  L. Qin,et al.  Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials , 2015, Journal of Orthopaedic Translation.

[18]  Amir A Zadpoor,et al.  Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. , 2015, Biomaterials science.

[19]  Miqin Zhang,et al.  Chitosan-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. , 2014, Journal of materials chemistry. B.

[20]  S. Paliwal,et al.  A Review of the Metabolism of 1,4-Butanediol Diglycidyl Ether–Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers , 2013, Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.].

[21]  R. Miron,et al.  Osteoinduction , 2012 .

[22]  E. Saino,et al.  Mesoporous Bioactive Glass as a Multifunctional System for Bone Regeneration and Controlled Drug Release , 2012, Journal of applied biomaterials & functional materials.

[23]  F. O'Valle,et al.  Effect of anorganic bovine bone to autogenous cortical bone ratio upon bone remodeling patterns following maxillary sinus augmentation. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  R. G. Richards,et al.  Nanotopographical modification: a regulator of cellular function through focal adhesions. , 2010, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[25]  M. Nieri,et al.  Bone augmentation at implant dehiscences and fenestrations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. , 2016, European journal of oral implantology.