Comparison of bone regeneration using three demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts: A histological and histomorphometric study in rabbit calvaria

Abstract

Background: It has been stated that the bone allografts from different tissue banks may lead to various amount of bone induction, so the aim of this study was to evaluate bone regeneration of three demineralized allografts both histologically and histomorphometrically in rabbits calvaria bone defects.

Materials and methods: In this double-blind randomized experimental animal study, 32 critical size defects (11-mm diameter) in the calvaria of 16 male New Zealand white rabbits were randomly filled with three demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (DBM, CENOBONE, DEMBONE), while the nongrafted defect was regarded as control group. After 6 and 12 weeks of healing, the experimental animals were euthanized for specimen preparation. After histological evaluation, histomorphometric analysis was performed to quantify new bone formation and remained graft particles. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's ad-hoc test and t-test. (P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant).

Results: Mean percentage of bone formation increased between two healing time, but it was not statistically significant in all groups except DBM which the bone formation significantly decreased (P = 0.04). There were not statistically significant differences between three allografts in remained particles and bone formation in both healing times and they could not induce significantly more bone formation than control group.

Conclusion: Both test and control groups resulted in successful new bone formation. No difference was noted in bone formation and remained particles between three commercial bone allografts. Further studies in this issue may be needed.

Keywords: Bone regeneration; demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts; osteoinduction; tissue bank.

Figure 1

Photograph of two standardized circular defects created with diameter of 11 mm

Figure 2

Histological evaluation of all grafted materials and control at 6 and 12 weeks. (magnification × 40). (a) DBM at 6 weeks, (b) DBM at 12 weeks, (c) CENOBONE at 6 weeks, (d) CENOBONE at 12 weeks, (e) DEMBONE at 6 weeks, (f) DEMBONE at 12 weeks, (g) Control at 6 weeks, (h) Control at 12 weeks

Figure 3

Comparison of bone formation in study groups at two healing times

Figure 4

Comparison of remained particles in study groups at two healing times