Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models
Alina Ioana Ardelean,
Sorin Marian Mârza,
Raluca Marica,
Mădălina Florina Dragomir,
Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan,
Mărioara Moldovan,
Paula Maria Pașca,
Liviu Oana
Affiliations
Alina Ioana Ardelean
Department of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Sorin Marian Mârza
Department of Veterinary Imagistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Raluca Marica
Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Mădălina Florina Dragomir
Department of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan
Department of Surgery III, Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania
Mărioara Moldovan
Raluca Ripan Institute for Research in Chemistry, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fantanele Street, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Paula Maria Pașca
Clinics Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 700489 Iasi, Romania
Liviu Oana
Department of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3–5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Repairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investigate the osteogenic potential and toxicological tolerance of the bioproducts through histopathology and computed tomography imaging analysis at 14, 28, 56, and 90 days post-implantation. The biomaterials used in the investigation consisted of a 65% bioactive salinized inorganic filler and a 25% weight organic matrix. The organic part of the biomaterial was composed of Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), HEMA (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), while the inorganic filler was composed of silica, barium glass, hydroxyapatite, and fluor aluminosilicate glass. The first findings of this research are encouraging, revealing that there is a slight difference between the groups treated with biomaterials, but it might be an effective approach for managing bone abnormalities. Material C1 exhibited a faster bone defect healing time compared to material C2, where bone fractures occurred in some individuals. It is unclear if the fractures were caused by the presence of the biomaterial C2 or whether additional variables were to blame. By the end of the research, the mice appeared to tolerate the biomaterials without exhibiting any inflammatory or rejection responses.
