Evaluation of Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Composite Grafts in the Regeneration of Critical-Sized Mandibular Defects in Experimental Models with Histomorphometric and Radiographic Correlation
Keywords:
Bioactive glass-ceramic, mandibular defects, bone regeneration, histomorphometry, radiographic correlation, biomaterials, composite graftsAbstract
Purpose: This study investigates the regenerative potential of bioactive glass-ceramic composite grafts in the healing of critical-sized mandibular defects. The objective is to correlate histomorphometric and radiographic outcomes to establish a comprehensive understanding of the material's biological and structural integration.
Methodology: A preclinical in vivo model using adult rabbits was selected to mimic critical-sized mandibular defects. Defects were grafted with a synthesized bioactive glass-ceramic composite, and outcomes were assessed through histological staining, histomorphometry, and digital radiography at multiple healing intervals.
Findings: The graft demonstrated excellent biocompatibility, with evidence of enhanced osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Radiographic analyses revealed progressive defect bridging and mineral density increase, closely correlating with histological findings of new bone matrix formation and vascular infiltration.
Practical implications: These findings indicate that bioactive glass-ceramic composites can serve as effective bone graft substitutes in maxillofacial surgery, particularly in non-load-bearing regions of the mandible. This has potential implications for clinical translation in cases where autografts are contraindicated.
Originality: The study presents a novel synthesis of bioactive glass-ceramic material tailored for mandibular bone repair and demonstrates its efficacy through dual-mode evaluation. The correlation between imaging and histology adds robustness to the evaluation, offering a reproducible preclinical methodology.
References
[1] Hench, Larry L. “Bioceramics: From Concept to Clinic.” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, vol. 74, no. 7, 1991, pp. 1487–1510.
[2] Hench, Larry L. “Bioactive Materials: The Potential for Tissue Regeneration.” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 1998, pp. 511–518.
[3] Xynos, Ioannis D., et al. “Gene-Expression Profiling of Human Osteoblasts Following Treatment with the Ionic Products of Bioglass®.” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, vol. 55, no. 2, 2001, pp. 151–157.
[4] Jones, Julian R. “Review of Bioactive Glass: From Hench to Hybrids.” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, pp. 4457–4486.
[5] Kargozar, Saeid, et al. “Bioactive Glasses: Sprouting Angiogenesis in Tissue Engineering.” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 4, 2018, pp. 430–444.
[6] Rahaman, Mohamed N., et al. “Bioactive Glass in Tissue Engineering.” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 7, no. 6, 2011, pp. 2355–2373.
[7] Valerio, Paola, et al. “Bioactive Glasses: From Parent 45S5 Composition to Scaffold-Assisted Tissue Healing.” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, vol. 20, no. 5, 2009, pp. 1079–1087.
[8] Dorozhkin, Sergey V. “Calcium Orthophosphate-Based Bioceramics.” Materials, vol. 6, no. 9, 2013, pp. 3840–3942.
[9] LeGeros, Racquel Z. “Properties of Osteoconductive Biomaterials: Calcium Phosphates.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 395, 2002, pp. 81–98.
[10] Sheikh, Zubair, et al. “Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitutes: A Review.” Biomaterials Research, vol. 19, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–11.
[11] Schmitz, John P., and J. O. Hollinger. “The Critical Size Defect as an Experimental Model for Craniomandibulofacial Nonunions.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 205, 1986, pp. 299–308.
[12] Bose, Susmita, et al. “Trends in Biomaterials Research for Bone Regeneration.” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 8, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1401–1421.
