Optical Coherence Tomography, Stereomicroscopic, and Histological Aspects of Bone Regeneration on Rat Calvaria in the Presence of Bovine Xenograft or Titanium-Reinforced Hydroxyapatite
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques have evolved with implantology development. In clinical practice, biomaterials for ARP are tested in laboratory animals, and rat calvaria is a standard option. The study aimed to evaluate biomaterial osteointegration in defects created in the rat calvaria, comparing an experimental synthetic biomaterial with a bovine xenograft and natural healing. Methods: The study included six groups of animals: two negative control groups with natural healing (2 months (M) and 4 M), two positive control groups with bovine xenograft (2 M and 4 M), and two study groups with nanohydroxyapatite titanium reinforced (2M and 4M). After creating and grafting the defects, healing was expected to take 2 or 4 months, after which bone fragments were harvested, prepared, and then analyzed. OCT, stereomicroscopy, and histology techniques were used for bone fragments analysis, and the obtained images were evaluated using Image J 1.54p software. Results: The results obtained from the three analyses provided information about the healing pattern of bone defects and the degree of new bone formation. Histological analysis of the samples confirmed what the stereomicroscopy and OCT images showed: that the bovine xenograft elicited a better tissue response than the synthetic biomaterial, being incorporated into the bone tissue more than the synthetic biomaterial. Conclusions: Both the bovine xenograft and the synthetic nanocomposite based on hydroxyapatite reinforced with titanium particles favored bone healing, but their integration into the bone was limited for the analyzed period.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Optical Coherence Tomography Applications · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
Department of Biophysics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
Department of Engineering and Management of Technological Systems, Faculty of Mechanics, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania
Department of Histology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
Funding
University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Comparative Evaluation of Bone Repair with Four Different Bone Substitutes in Critical Size Defects
2. Krasilnikova, O.A., Baranovskii, D.S., Yakimova, A.O., Arguchinskaya, N., Kisel, A., Sosin, D., Sulina, Y., Ivanov, S.A., Shegay, P.V., and Kaprin, A.D. (2022). Intraoperative Creation of Tissue-Engineered Grafts with Minimally Manipulated Cells: New Concept of Bone Tissue Engineering In Situ. Bioengineering, 9.10.3390/bioengineering9110704 ↗
3. Jain, G., Blaauw, D., and Chang, S. (2022). A Comparative Study of Two Bone Graft Substitutes-InterOss® Collagen and OCS-B Collagen®. J. Funct. Biomater., 13.10.3390/jfb13010028 ↗
4. Optical coherence tomography qualitative analysis of bone regeneration in rats with titanium reinforced hydroxyapatite biomaterial and porcine bone-derived grafting material
5. Valencia-Llano, C.H., López-Tenorio, D., Saavedra, M., Zapata, P.A., and Grande-Tovar, C.D. (2022). Comparison of Two Bovine Commercial Xenografts in the Regeneration of Critical Cranial Defects. Molecules, 27.10.3390/molecules27185745 ↗
6. Chen, M.Y., Fang, J.J., Lee, J.N., Periasamy, S., Yen, K.C., Wang, H.C., and Hsieh, D.J. (2022). Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Decellularized Xenograft-3D CAD/CAM Carved Bone Matrix Personalized for Human Bone Defect Repair. Genes, 13.10.3390/genes13050755 ↗
7. Evaluation of an Engineered Hybrid Matrix for Bone Regeneration via Endochondral Ossification10.1007/s10439-019-02279-0 ↗
8. Frigério, P.B., Quirino, L.C., Gabrielli, M.A.C., Carvalho, P.H.A., Garcia Júnior, I.R., and Pereira-Filho, V.A. (2023). Evaluation of Bone Repair Using a New Biphasic Synthetic Bioceramic (Plenum® Osshp) in Critical Calvaria Defect in Rats. Biology, 12.10.3390/biology12111417 ↗
9. Alveolar ridge preservation: Why, when and how10.1038/s41415-019-0647-2 ↗
10. Chinnasami, H., Dey, M.K., and Devireddy, R. (2023). Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Bioengineering, 10.10.3390/bioengineering10070759 ↗
11. Tomas, M., Čandrlić, M., Juzbašić, M., Ivanišević, Z., Matijević, N., Včev, A., Cvijanović Peloza, O., Matijević, M., and Perić Kačarević, Ž. (2021). Synthetic Injectable Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Animal and Human Studies. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14112858 ↗
12. Ashfaq, R., Kovács, A., Berkó, S., and Budai-Szűcs, M. (2024). Developments in Alloplastic Bone Grafts and Barrier Membrane Biomaterials for Periodontal Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 25.10.3390/ijms25147746 ↗
13. Cheah, C.W., Al-Namnam, N.M., Lau, M.N., Lim, G.S., Raman, R., Fairbairn, P., and Ngeow, W.C. (2021). Synthetic Material for Bone, Periodontal, and Dental Tissue Regeneration: Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Heading Next?. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14206123 ↗
14. Fukuba, S., Okada, M., Nohara, K., and Iwata, T. (2021). Alloplastic Bone Substitutes for Periodontal and Bone Regeneration in Dentistry: Current Status and Prospects. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14051096 ↗
15. Bioactive Materials for Bone Regeneration: Biomolecules and Delivery Systems10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00609 ↗
16. Use of a Novel In Situ Hardening Biphasic Alloplastic Bone Grafting Material for Guided Bone Regeneration Around Dental Implants: A Prospective Case Series10.1002/cap.10141 ↗
17. Elahi, A., Duncan, W., Li, K.C., Waddell, J.N., and Coates, D. (2023). Comparison of Low and High Temperature Sintering for Processing of Bovine Bone as Block Grafts for Oral Use: A Biological and Mechanical In Vitro Study. Bioengineering, 10.10.3390/bioengineering10040473 ↗
18. Autograft, Allograft, and Bone Graft Substitutes: Clinical Evidence and Indications for Use in the Setting of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420 ↗
19. Comparison of Autogenous Tooth Materials and Other Bone Grafts10.1007/s13770-021-00333-4 ↗
20. Clinical performance of alveolar ridge augmentation with xenogeneic bone block grafts versus autogenous bone block grafts. A systematic review10.1016/j.jormas.2020.10.009 ↗
21. Structurally optimized honeycomb scaffolds with outstanding ability for vertical bone augmentation10.1016/j.jare.2021.12.010 ↗
22. Comparative study of impact of animal source on physical, structural, and biological properties of bone xenograft10.1111/xen.12628 ↗
23. Picciolo, G., Peditto, M., Irrera, N., Pallio, G., Altavilla, D., Vaccaro, M., Picciolo, G., Scarfone, A., Squadrito, F., and Oteri, G. (2020). Preclinical and Clinical Applications of Biomaterials in the Enhancement of Wound Healing in Oral Surgery: An Overview of the Available Reviews. Pharmaceutics, 12.10.3390/pharmaceutics12111018 ↗
24. Evaluation of Two Anorganic Bovine Xenogenous Grafts in Bone Healing of Critical Defect in Rats Calvaria
25. Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: Consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration10.1111/jcpe.13123 ↗
26. Comparing the effects of Bone+B® xenograft and InterOss® xenograft bone material on rabbit calvaria bone defect regeneration10.1002/cre2.875 ↗
27. Risks of Infectious Disease in Xenotransplantation10.1056/NEJMra2207462 ↗
28. Falacho, R.I., Palma, P.J., Marques, J.A., Figueiredo, M.H., Caramelo, F., Dias, I., Viegas, C., and Guerra, F. (2021). Collagenated Porcine Heterologous Bone Grafts: Histomorphometric Evaluation of Bone Formation Using Different Physical Forms in a Rabbit Cancellous Bone Model. Molecules, 26.10.3390/molecules26051339 ↗
29. Bovine Collagen Xenografts as Cost-Effective Adjuncts for Granulating Surgical Defects10.1097/DSS.0000000000004216 ↗
30. Potentials of pure xenograft materials in maxillary ridge augmentation: A case series10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.10.005 ↗
31. Plumping up a Cushion of Human Biowaste in Regenerative Medicine: Novel Insights into a State-of-the-Art Reserve Arsenal10.1007/s12015-022-10383-3 ↗
32. Susin, C., Lee, J., Fiorini, T., Koo, K.T., Schüpbach, P., Finger Stadler, A., and Wikesjö, U.M. (2022). Screening of Hydroxyapatite Biomaterials for Alveolar Augmentation Using a Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defect Model: Bone Formation/Maturation and Biomaterials Resolution. Biomolecules, 12.10.3390/biom12111677 ↗
33. Optimized bone grafting10.1111/prd.12517 ↗
34. Osseointegration Evaluation of Two Socket Preservation Materials in Small Diameter Bone Cavities An in vivo lab rats study10.37358/RC.18.10.6650 ↗
35. Impact of scaffold granule size use in Masquelet technique on periosteal reaction: A study in rat femur critical size bone defect model10.1007/s00068-020-01516-9 ↗
36. Filippi, M., Born, G., Chaaban, M., and Scherberich, A. (2020). Natural Polymeric Scaffolds in Bone Regeneration. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 8.10.3389/fbioe.2020.00474 ↗
37. Physical characterization of biphasic bioceramic materials with different granulation sizes and their influence on bone repair and inflammation in rat calvaria10.1038/s41598-021-84033-y ↗
38. Matichescu, A., Ardelean, L.C., Rusu, L.C., Craciun, D., Bratu, E.A., Babucea, M., and Leretter, M. (2020). Advanced Biomaterials and Techniques for Oral Tissue Engineering and Regeneration-A Review. Materials, 13.10.3390/ma13225303 ↗
39. Hudecki, A., Łyko-Morawska, D., Kasprzycka, A., Kazek-Kęsik, A., Likus, W., Hybiak, J., Jankowska, K., Kolano-Burian, A., Włodarczyk, P., and Wolany, W. (2022). Comparison of Physicochemical, Mechanical, and (Micro-)Biological Properties of Sintered Scaffolds Based on Natural- and Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Supplemented with Selected Dopants. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms23094692 ↗
40. Nanohydroxyapatite in dentistry: A comprehensive review10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.018 ↗
41. Radiological Comparative Study Between Conventional and Nano Hydroxyapatite With Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) Membranes for Their Effects on Alveolar Bone Density
42. β-tricalcium phosphate for bone substitution: Synthesis and properties10.1016/j.actbio.2020.06.022 ↗
43. Khaddour, A.S., Drăghici, E.C., Ionescu, M., Andrei, C.E., Ghiţă, R.E., Mercuţ, R., Gîngu, O., Sima, G., Toma Tumbar, L., and Popescu, S.M. (2025). Bone Regeneration in Defects Created on Rat Calvaria Grafted with Porcine Xenograft and Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Reinforced with Titanium Particles-A Microscopic and Histological Study. J. Funct. Biomater., 16.10.3390/jfb16040146 ↗
44. Laddec® versus Bio-Oss®: The effect on the healing of critical-sized defect–Calvaria rabbit model10.1002/jbm.b.35125 ↗
45. Endochondral Priming: A Developmental Engineering Strategy for Bone Tissue Regeneration10.1089/ten.teb.2016.0197 ↗
46. Preparation and properties of a new artificial bone composite material
47. Ardelean, A.I., Mârza, S.M., Marica, R., Dragomir, M.F., Rusu-Moldovan, A.O., Moldovan, M., Pașca, P.M., and Oanam, L. (2024). Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models. Life, 14.10.3390/life14091097 ↗
48. Osteoconductive properties of upside-down bilayer collagen membranes in rat calvarial defects10.1186/s40729-021-00333-y ↗
49. Optical coherence tomography application for assessing variation in bone mineral content: A preclinical study
50. Enhanced medical diagnosis for dOCTors: A perspective of optical coherence tomography10.1117/1.JBO.26.10.100601 ↗
51. Optical coherence tomography’s current clinical medical and dental applications: A review10.12688/f1000research.52031.1 ↗
52. Osseointegration evaluation of an experimental bone graft material based on hydroxyapatite, reinforced with titanium-based particles10.47162/RJME.64.1.06 ↗
53. Evaluation of bone regeneration in rat calvaria using combination of enamel matrix derivate and bone graft substitute: A histological, histometric and immunohistochemical study10.1007/s10006-025-01390-y ↗
54. Guo, X., Zheng, H., Guo, Y., Heng, B.C., Yang, Y., Yao, W., and Jiang, S. (2023). A three-dimensional actively spreading bone repair material based on cell spheroids can facilitate the preservation of tooth extraction sockets. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 11.10.3389/fbioe.2023.1161192 ↗
55. Effect of hydroxyapatite on critical-sized defect10.1186/s40902-016-0072-2 ↗
56. Bone regeneration in rat calvarial defects using dissociated or spheroid mesenchymal stromal cells in scaffold-hydrogel constructs10.1186/s13287-021-02642-w ↗
57. Kumar, P., Saini, M., Dehiya, B.S., Sindhu, A., Kumar, V., Kumar, R., Lamberti, L., Pruncu, C.I., and Thakur, R. (2020). Comprehensive Survey on Nanobiomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications. Nanomaterials, 10.10.3390/nano10102019 ↗
58. Bone Toolbox: Biomarkers, Imaging Tools, Biomechanics, and Histomorphometry10.1177/0192623318779565 ↗
59. The use of ROI overlays and a semi-automated method for measuring cortical area in ImageJ for histological analysis10.1002/ajpa.23747 ↗
60. Microstructure, stability and biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite–titania nanocomposites formed by two step sintering process10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.01.019 ↗
61. Wear behaviour of ceramic biocomposites based on hydroxiapatite nanopowders10.1243/09544089JPME307 ↗
62. Quantitative assessment of rat bone regeneration using complex master-slave optical coherence tomography10.21037/qims.2019.05.03 ↗
63. An optical coherence tomography evaluation of two synthetic bone augmentation materials in calvaria and mandibular lab rats cavities
64. Khan, A., Pin, K., Aziz, A., Han, J.W., and Nam, Y. (2023). Optical Coherence Tomography Image Classification Using Hybrid Deep Learning and Ant Colony Optimization. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23156706 ↗
65. Measuring bone quality10.1007/s11926-013-0373-8 ↗
66. Comparing alveolar bone regeneration using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone grafts in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis
67. A digital approach for the analysis of the optical coherence tomography evaluation of hydroxyapatite–based bone graft materials
68. Comparison of optical coherence tomography, microcomputed tomography, and histology at a three-dimensionally imaged trabecular bone sample10.1117/1.3477193 ↗
69. Bae, E.B., Kim, H.J., Ahn, J.J., Bae, H.Y., Kim, H.J., and Huh, J.B. (2019). Comparison of Bone Regeneration between Porcine-Derived and Bovine-Derived Xenografts in Rat Calvarial Defects: A Non-Inferiority Study. Materials, 12.10.3390/ma12203412 ↗
70. Bielenstein, J., Radenković, M., Najman, S., Liu, L., Ren, Y., Cai, B., Beuer, F., Rimashevskiy, D., Schnettler, R., and Alkildani, S. (2022). In Vivo Analysis of the Regeneration Capacity and Immune Response to Xenogeneic and Synthetic Bone Substitute Materials. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23.10.3390/ijms231810636 ↗