Comparison of Biomaterial Implants in the Dental Socket: Histological Analysis in Dogs
MetadataShow full item record
Background:Bone graft procedures have been used commonly in buco-maxillo-facial surgery. For this reason, many researchers have evaluated the bone substitutes.Purpose:The present study evaluated soft and hard tissue reactions to two different hydroxyapatites HAs (synthetic HA and natural HA) and bioactive glass implanted into the sockets immediately after extraction.Materials and Methods:First and third upper and lower premolars, on both sides, were extracted from six female dogs. The alveolar sockets were randomly assigned to four groups: Group 1 - control (unfilled), Group 2 - filled with synthetic hydroxyapatite, Group 3 - filled with bovine bone mineral (natural HA), and Group 4 - filled with bioactive glass. The animals were euthanized at 4 weeks (n = 2), 8 weeks (n = 2), and 28 weeks (n = 2) after extraction. The mandible and maxilla of each animal were removed for histological analysis to determine soft tissue reactions, newly formed bone, bone characteristics, and presence or absence of implanted materials.Results:Most particles of synthetic hydroxyapatite had bone formation on their surface, although some particles showed a layer of fibrous connective tissue. The bovine bone mineral group exhibited particles partially replaced with bone formation. The bioactive glass group showed particles with a thin layer of calcified tissue, but was absent in some specimens, suggesting complete resorption.Conclusion:All biomaterials had similar behavior. Bovine bone mineral, compared to synthetic hydroxyapatite and bioactive glass, showed a larger number of particles covered with osseous tissue. All biomaterials interfered with the socket repair process.