The effects of amlodipine and platelet rich plasma on bone healing in rats

Abstract

Yusuf Atalay,1 Mehmet Fatih Bozkurt,2 Yucel Gonul,3 Omer Cakmak,4 Kamil Serkan Agacayak,5 Ibrahim Köse,6 Omer Hazman,7 Hikmet Keles,2 Ozan Turamanlar,3 Mehmet Eroglu8 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; 2Department of Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; 3Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; 4Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; 5Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey; 6Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey; 7Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; 8Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine (AML), platelet rich plasma (PRP), and a mixture of both materials on bone healing.Materials and methods: Fifty-six male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: group A, tibia defect model with no treatment; group B, tibia defect model treated with AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage; group C, tibia defect model treated with local PRP; group D, tibia defect model treated with local PRP and AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage.Results: At day 21, bone healing was significantly better in groups C and D compared to group A (P<0.05), but comparisons showed no statistically significant difference in group B (P>0.05). At day 30, groups B and C showed no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) compared to group A, but bone healing in group D was significantly better than in group A (P<0.05). Statistically, AML did not affect alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity at 21 and 30 days (P>0.05), but PRP and AML + PRP increased ALP activity statistically (P<0.05).Conclusion: It can be concluded that AML had neither a positive nor a negative effect on bone healing, but when used in combination with PRP, it may be beneficial.Keywords: amlodipine, calcium channel blockers, platelet-rich plasma, bone mineral metabolism, hypertension