Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6pznq Total loading time: 0.392 Render date: 2021-03-07T03:52:08.218Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Comparison of Dense Versus Porous Hydroxylapatite (HA) Particles for Rat Mandibular Defect Repair

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Stephen A. Fredette
Affiliation:
Dental Research Center and Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Jacob S. Hanker
Affiliation:
Dental Research Center and Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Bill C. Terry
Affiliation:
Dental Research Center and Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Beverly L. Giammara
Affiliation:
Graduate Programs and Research, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292.
Get access

Abstract

Repair was compared in 4.4mm experimental rat mandibular ramus defects implanted with dense or porous HA particles with or without a plaster binder. Animals were sacrificed 6 months postimplantation. Specimens underwent gross, radiographic, histochemical and X-ray microanalytical examination. Gross and radiographic examinations showed good particle containment or retention only in defects filled with implants containing plaster. Only porous HA/plaster filled defects showed bone formation throughout the implant when examined histochemically by the PATS reaction and by X-ray microanalysis. They also showed greater radiographic opacity compared to dense HA/plaster implants. Only porous HA/plaster implants showed macroscopic bone formation. Examination of defects filled with porous HA/plaster or porous HA alone by the PATS reaction showed new cancellous bone around, and through the pores of, retained particles. The dense HA/plaster implants showed some new bone around the rims of the defects with only occasional bony incorporation of an HA particle. Dense particles in other areas showed only soft tissue encapsulation. Defects implanted with dense HA without plaster showed no new bone formation but retained particles were incorporated by fibrovascular tissue.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Giammara, B., Burkes, E., Ambrose, W., Howard, C., Terry, B. and Hanker, J., J. Dent. Res. 63, 325 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Hanker, J., Rausch, J., Li, S., Ambrose, W., Howard, C., Tucker, M., Lupton, C. and Terry, B., J. Dent. Res. 63, 325, (1984).Google Scholar
3. Hanker, J., Tucker, M., Terry, B., Carnevale, R. and Giammara, B., Proc. Materials. Res. Soc. 55, 77 (1986).Google Scholar
4. Chiroff, R., White, E., and Weber, J., J. Bio. Mater. Res. Symp. 6, 29 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Holmes, R., Plast. Reconst. Surg. 63, 626 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Piecuch, J. and Fedork, N., J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 41, 301, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Tio, F., Nishioka, G., Schwartz, G. and McAnear, J., J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 45, 188 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Holmes, R. and Hagler, H., J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 45, 421 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kaban, L. and Glowacki, J., J. Dent. Res. 60, 1356 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Giammara, B., Romaine, T. and Hanker, J.S., J. Dent. Res. 62, 198 (1983).Google Scholar
11. Giammara, B., Romaine, T., Ambrose, W. and Hanker, J.. Proc. 42nd Ann. Meet. Electron Microscop. Soc. Amer. 264 (1984).Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 6 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 7th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of Dense Versus Porous Hydroxylapatite (HA) Particles for Rat Mandibular Defect Repair
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of Dense Versus Porous Hydroxylapatite (HA) Particles for Rat Mandibular Defect Repair
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of Dense Versus Porous Hydroxylapatite (HA) Particles for Rat Mandibular Defect Repair
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *