These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of various delivery systems for demineralized bone matrix in a rat cranial defect model.
    Author: Jazayeri MA, Nichter LS, Zhou ZY, Wellisz T, Cheung DT.
    Journal: J Craniofac Surg; 1994 Jul; 5(3):172-8; discussion 179. PubMed ID: 7803589.
    Abstract:
    Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) has been successfully used as a substitute for bone grafting. Autogenous bone grafts may cause site morbidity and undergo significant resorption. DBM may overcome these problems, but it has no mechanical stability until bone formation has occurred. We tested various alloplastic implants (i.e., Surgicel, polydioxanone [PDS], porous polyethylene [Medpor], and Gelfoam) in combination with DBM and compared it with DBM alone in a 9 x 9 mm rat cranial defect model. Histological and biomechanical measurements were performed at postoperative month 2. Among the study groups, Gelfoam/DBM inhibited bone formation to varying degrees and was the only group that displayed an inflammatory response. Mechanical pushout tests using a servohydraulic testing frame were conducted. The Medpor/DBM implant displayed the strongest support at 2 months; maximum load was 95% of intact skull. Surgicel/DBM and DBM alone were comparable; maximum load was 66% of intact skull. Gelfoam/DBM and PDS/DBM displayed the weakest support (48% of intact skull). We conclude that, after 2 months of implantation, alloplastic/DBM composites provide osseous structural integration. Gelfoam/DBM is not an effective delivery system for DBM in our model.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]