This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bidic, S.M.S. Articles by Mooney, M.P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Rabbit Calvarial Wound Healing by Means of Seeded Caprotite^® Scaffolds

¹ Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh;
² Plastic surgery, University of California-Irvine;
³ Complex Engineered Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA;
⁴ Biomedical Health Engineering and Biological Sciences, and Bone Tissue Engineering Center, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA;
⁵ Oral Medicine and Pathology, 329 Salk Hall, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15261;
⁶ Radiology, University of Pittsburgh;
⁷ Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh;
⁸ The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA; and
⁹ Anthropology and Orthodontics, University of Pittsburgh;

View larger version (176K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Caprotite® disks, 8 mm in diameter, before seeding and implantation (A). Closer view of a disk with 80% porosity and 150-200-mm pores (B). Superior, intra-operative view of a rabbit calvaria showing the in situ location of autograft and Caprotite® disk (C).

View larger version (63K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Serial 3D-CT reconstructions of calvarial defects at 0, 6, and 12 wks post-operatively. Note the complete obliteration of the defect filled with the autograft by 6 wks and the limited bony ingrowth along the margins of the defects in the other three groups.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Mean (± SE) defect area by group and post-operative interval (n = 10/group/post-op interval). Note the significantly (p < 0.05) reduced defect area in the control group compared with the unseeded Caprotite® disk at 6 and 12 wks post-operatively. No significant (p > 0.05) differences were noted between the control group and the seeded Caprotite® group at 6 and 12 wks post-operatively.

View larger version (153K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Coronal histological sections through the calvaria showing defects from the four groups. Note the complete bony incorporation of the autograft into the surrounding host site, the bony ingrowth from the margins in the control defect, the bony islands in the seeded Caprotite® disk, and the relative lack of ossification in the unseeded Caprotite® disk. Specimens stained with Masson‘s trichrome; original magnification, 1.25x.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati