Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 12 (20)

Comparison of Bone Regeneration Between Porcine-Derived and Bovine-Derived Xenografts in Rat Calvarial Defects: A Non-Inferiority Study

Affiliations

Comparison of Bone Regeneration Between Porcine-Derived and Bovine-Derived Xenografts in Rat Calvarial Defects: A Non-Inferiority Study

Eun-Bin Bae et al. Materials (Basel).

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the bone-regeneration capacity of porcine-derived xenografts to bovine-derived xenografts in the rat calvarial defect model. The observation of surface morphology and in vitro cell studies were conducted prior to the animal study. Defects with a diameter of 8 mm were created in calvaria of 20 rats. The rats were randomly treated with porcine-derived (Bone-XP group) or bovine-derived xenografts (Bio-Oss group) and sacrificed at 4 and 8 weeks after surgery. The new bone regeneration was evaluated by micro-computed tomography (μCT) and histomorphometric analyses. In the cell study, the extracts of Bone-XP and Bio-Oss showed a positive effect on the regulation of osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) without cytotoxicity. The new bone volume of Bone-XP (17.52 ± 3.78% at 4 weeks and 32.09 ± 3.51% at 8 weeks) was similar to that of Bio-Oss (11.6 ± 3.88% at 4 weeks and 25.89 ± 7.43% at 8 weeks) (p > 0.05). In the results of new bone area, there was no significant difference between Bone-XP (9.08 ± 5.47% at 4 weeks and 25.22 ± 13.56% at 8 weeks) and Bio-Oss groups (5.83 ± 2.56% at 4 weeks and 21.68 ± 11.11% at 8 weeks) (p > 0.05). It can be concluded that the porcine-derived bone substitute may offer a favorable cell response and bone regeneration similar to those of commercial bovine bone mineral.

Keywords: bone regeneration; bone substitute; porcine bone; xenograft.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Operative procedures using rat calvarial defect model. (a) Created calvarial defect, (b) insertion of bone grafts, (c) placement of collagen membrane.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Area of interest (AOI) for volumetric analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Schematic diagram of histometric analysis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparative scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of each group. (a,c,e) Bio-Oss and (b,d,f) Bone-XP groups. [Original magnification: ×60 (a,b), ×500 (c,d), ×2000 (e,f)].
Figure 5
Figure 5
(a) Cell viability and (b) proliferation of extracts on human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Cell osteogenic differentiation assay. (a) Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining and (b) the quantitative analysis. The symbol * indicates statistical significance compare to control (* p < 0.05).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of hMSCs on extracts. (a) ALP, (b) OPN, and (c) RUNX2 were selected as the osteogenic differentiation related genes. The symbol * indicates statistical significance compare to control group (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Micro-computed tomography (μCT) analysis images. (ad) μCT images. (eh) 3D reconstructed μCT images. (il) Classified new bone in area of interest (AOI). Yellow circle: AOI, Red colored area: newly formed bone.
Figure 9
Figure 9
New bone volume percentages within area of interest (AOI).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Histologic sections of (a,b,e,f,i,j) Bio-Oss and (c,d,g,h,k,l) Bone-XP groups at 4 weeks post-surgery. (a,c,e,g,i,k) haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides; (b,d,f,h,j,l) Masson’s trichrome (MT) stained slides; Arrowhead: original defect edge; Arrow: lines of osteoblasts NB: newly generated bone; CT: connective tissue; BM: residual bone grafts. [Original magnification: (ad) ×12.5, (eh) ×40, (il) ×100].
Figure 11
Figure 11
Histologic sections of (a,b,e,f,i,j) Bio-Oss and (c,d,g,h,k,l) Bone-XP groups at 8 weeks post-surgery. (a,c,e,g,i,k) haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides; (b,d,f,h,j,l) Masson’s trichrome (MT) stained slides; Arrowhead: original defect edge; Arrow: lines of osteoblasts NB: newly generated bone; CT: connective tissue; BM: residual bone grafts. [Original magnification: (ad) ×12.5, (eh) ×40, (il) ×100].
Figure 12
Figure 12
New bone area percentages within area of interest (AOI).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lee J.H., Yi G.S., Lee J.W., Kim D.J. Physicochemical characterization of porcine bone-derived grafting material and comparison with bovine xenografts for dental applications. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017;47:388–401. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.6.388. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Venkataraman N., Bansal S., Bansal P., Narayan S. Dynamics of bone graft healing around implants. J. Int. Clin. Dent. Res. Organ. 2015;7:40.
    1. Bauer T.W., Muschler G.F. Bone graft materials: An overview of the basic science. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2000;371:10–27. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200002000-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Misch C.M. Autogenous bone: Is it still the gold standard? Implant Dent. 2010;19:361. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181f8115b. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van den Bergh J.P., ten Bruggenkate C.M., Krekeler G., Tuinzing D.B. Sinus floor elevation and grafting with autogenous iliac crest bone. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1998;9:429–435. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.090608.x. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback