A Comparison of the Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Demineralized Bone Matrix on Critical Bone Defects: An Experimental Study on Rats
| Autor: | Ahmet Bayar, Mahmut Nedim Doral, Selçuk Keser, Mustafa Kemal Akça, Murat Songür, Egemen Turhan |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
PRP DBM 0206 medical engineering Urology Bone Matrix Biocompatible Materials 02 engineering and technology Fractured bone Fractures Bone Osteogenesis medicine Animals Rats Wistar business.industry Demineralized bone matrix Ossification Platelet-Rich Plasma dBm 021001 nanoscience & nanotechnology 020601 biomedical engineering Surgery Rats Diaphysis Disease Models Animal Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine medicine.anatomical_structure segmental bone defect Platelet-rich plasma Orthopedic surgery Delayed union Emergency Medicine medicine.symptom 0210 nano-technology business |
| Popis: | WOS: 000397812400002 PubMed: 28467589 BACKGROUND: Delayed union of fractured bone is one of the main problems of orthopedics and traumatology practice. It was hypothesized that the beneficial effects of allogeneic platelet-rich plasma (PRP) would be valuable in the treatment of segmental bone defects. This study is a comparison of the effects of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and PRP in a segmental bone defect model. METHODS: Total of 48 Wistar albino rats were separated into 4 groups. Segmental bone defect was created at right radius diaphysis in all specimens using dorsal approach. Four additional rats were used as PRP source. Intracardiac blood was withdrawn before the operation for preparation of allogeneic PRP. Group I (n= 12) served as control group and defects were left untreated. Group 2 (n= 12), was PRP group, and received grafting with PRP. Group 3 (n= 12) was PRP+ DBM combination group, and was treated with grafting and mixture of DBM and PRP. In Group 4 (n= 12), defect area was grafted with DBM only. At the end of 10(th) week, rats were sacrificed, forearms were dissected, and defect areas were examined with radiological and histopathological parameters. RESULTS: Radiological evaluation revealed that ossification was best in PRP group, followed by DBM group. According to results of histopathological studies, union quality was better than control group in all treatment groups (Groups 2, 3, and 4), and was best in PRP group (p < 0.05). Results were also better in PRP group when examined in terms of cortex development and remodeling (p < 0.05). When examined in terms of new osteogenesis, results were comparable in Groups 2, 3, and 4, but all were better than control group. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that PRP and DBM have comparable effect on recovery of defective bones, but there is no synergistic effect when used together. We believe that PRP can be a cost-effective, readily available alternative to DBM with minimal morbidity. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|