Comparison of Bone Graft Preparations to Treat a Critical Bone Defect on a Rodent Animal Model

Abstract

Objective Although autologous bone grafting is the most widely used treatment for bone defects, the most effective preparation remains unclear. This animal study aimed to compare different autologous bone grafting preparation for the treatment of rat́s calvaria critical bone defect.

Methods 122 rats were randomly allocated into three groups: Simulado, Macerated and Chopped. The specimens underwent craniotomies at the top center of their calvarias with a 7mm diameter circumferential cutter drill. The critical bone defect produced was treated or not according to the group the specimen wasallocated. The rats were euthanized at 3, 6 or 12 weeks post-op and its calvarias were analyzed by histomorphometry, bone densitometry, nanocomputed tomography (nCT), and biomechanical tests.

Results The histomorphometry analysis showed the highest percentage of fulfillment of the critical bone defect in the chopped and macerated group when compared to simulado. The densitometry assessment evidenced higher bone mass at all endpoints analysis (p < 0.05) in the chopped group. The nCT data exhibited an expressive increase of bone in the chopped group when compared with the simulado and macerated groups. The biomechanical tests exhibited highest values of deformation, maximum force, and relative stiffness in the chopped group at any time of euthanasia (p < 0.05).

Conclusions Our experimental work showed that chopped bone grafting preparation exhibited significant better outcomes than macerated in the treatment of a critical bone defect in rat́s calvaria.

Keywords

bone and bones - bone regeneration - bone transplantation - models, animal

Work carried out at the Department of Orthopedics and Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

Publication History

Received: 09 October 2023

Accepted: 18 March 2024

Article published online:
04 September 2024

• Referências

• 1 Klüter T, Hassan R, Rasch A. et al. An Ex Vivo Bone Defect Model to Evaluate Bone Substitutes and Associated Bone Regeneration Processes. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2020; 26 (01) 56-65
• 2 Chiarlone F, Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Alessio-Mazzola M, Felli L, Burastero G. Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140 (03) 415-424
• 3 Gupta S, Teotia AK, Qayoom I, Shiekh PA, Andrabi SM, Kumar A. Periosteum-Mimicking Tissue-Engineered Composite for Treating Periosteum Damage in Critical-Sized Bone Defects. Biomacromolecules 2021; 22 (08) 3237-3250
• 4 Park B, Liporace F, Marwin S. Managing Acetabular Defects in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2017; 75 (01) 37-46
• 5 Nauth A, Schemitsch E, Norris B, Nollin Z, Watson JT. Critical-Size Bone Defects: Is There a Consensus for Diagnosis and Treatment?. J Orthop Trauma 2018; 32 (Suppl. 01) S7-S11
• 6 Padalhin A, Ventura R, Kim B, Sultana T, Park CM, Lee BT. Boosting osteogenic potential and bone regeneration by co-cultured cell derived extracellular matrix incorporated porous electrospun scaffold. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2021; 32 (06) 779-798
• 7 Hofmann A, Gorbulev S, Guehring T. et al; CERTiFy Study Group. Autologous Iliac Bone Graft Compared with Biphasic Hydroxyapatite and Calcium Sulfate Cement for the Treatment of Bone Defects in Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (03) 179-193
• 8 Schmidt AH. Autologous bone graft: Is it still the gold standard?. Injury 2021; 52 (Suppl. 02) S18-S22
• 9 Busch A, Wegner A, Haversath M, Jäger M. Bone Substitutes in Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Z Orthop Unfall 2021; 159 (03) 304-313
• 10 Diallo AM, Rota S, Boissière M. et al. Osteoformation potential of an allogenic partially demineralized bone matrix in critical-size defects in the rat calvarium. Mater Sci Eng C 2021; 127: 112207
• 11 Taşdemir U, Kirtay M, Keleş A, Çil N, Abban G, Dodurga Y. Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft and Simvastatin Combination Effect on Bone Healing. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31 (08) 2350-2354
• 12 Spicer PP, Kretlow JD, Young S, Jansen JA, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Evaluation of bone regeneration using the rat critical size calvarial defect. Nat Protoc 2012; 7 (10) 1918-1929
• 13 Schemitsch EH. Size Matters: Defining Critical in Bone Defect Size!. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31 (Suppl. 05) S20-S22
• 14 Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO. The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (205) 299-308
• 15 Strauss FJ, Kuchler U, Kobatake R, Heimel P, Tangl S, Gruber R. Acid bone lysates reduce bone regeneration in rat calvaria defects. J Biomed Mater Res A 2021; 109 (05) 659-665
• 16 Nettleton K, Luong D, Kleinfehn AP, Savariau L, Premanandan C, Becker ML. Molecular Mass-Dependent Resorption and Bone Regeneration of 3D Printed PPF Scaffolds in a Critical-Sized Rat Cranial Defect Model. Adv Healthc Mater 2019; 8 (17) e1900646
• 17 Luca RE, Giuliani A, Mănescu A. et al. Osteogenic Potential of Bovine Bone Graft in Combination with Laser Photobiomodulation: An Ex Vivo Demonstrative Study in Wistar Rats by Cross-Linked Studies Based on Synchrotron Microtomography and Histology. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21 (03) 778
• 18 Jiménez G, López-Ruiz E, Antich C, Chocarro-Wrona C, Marchal JA. Models of Disease. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1059: 331-350
• 19 Sirveaux F. Reconstruction techniques after proximal humerus tumour resection. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (1S): S153-S164
• 20 Monir A, Mukaibo T, Abd El-Aal ABM. et al. Local administration of HMGB-1 promotes bone regeneration on the critical-sized mandibular defects in rabbits. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 8950
• 21 Iliaens J, Onsea J, Hoekstra H, Nijs S, Peetermans WE, Metsemakers WJ. Fracture-related infection in long bone fractures: A comprehensive analysis of the economic impact and influence on quality of life. Injury 2021; 52 (11) 3344-3349
• 22 Rolvien T, Barbeck M, Wenisch S, Amling M, Krause M. Cellular Mechanisms Responsible for Success and Failure of Bone Substitute Materials. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19 (10) 2893
• 23 Bauer J, Liu RW, Kean TJ, Dennis JE, Petersilge W, Gilmore A. A comparison of five treatment protocols for contaminated bone grafts in reference to sterility and cell viability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 439-444
• 24 Caballé-Serrano J, Sawada K, Schuldt Filho G, Bosshardt DD, Buser D, Gruber R. Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay. J Vis Exp 2015; (101) e52707
• 25 Ashman O, Phillips AM. Treatment of non-unions with bone defects: which option and why?. Injury 2013; 44 (Suppl. 01) S43-S45
• 26 Martinez-Zelaya VR, Archilha NL, Calasans-Maia M, Farina M, Rossi AM. Trabecular architecture during the healing process of a tibial diaphysis defect. Acta Biomater 2021; 120: 181-193
• 27 Hallman M, Driscoll JA, Lubbe R. et al. Influence of Geometry and Architecture on the In Vivo Success of 3D-Printed Scaffolds for Spinal Fusion. Tissue Eng Part A 2021; 27 (1-2): 26-36
• 28 Chan CK, Kumar TS, Liao S, Murugan R, Ngiam M, Ramakrishnan S. Biomimetic nanocomposites for bone graft applications. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2006; 1 (02) 177-188
• 29 Strong EB, Moulthrop T. Calvarial bone graft harvest: a new technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123 (05) 547-552
• 30 Muschler GF, Raut VP, Patterson TE, Wenke JC, Hollinger JO. The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010; 16 (01) 123-145