°¡Åä µÎ°³°ñ °á¼Õ ¸ðµ¨¿¡¼ Bioglass°¡ ÷°¡µÈ ºÒ¼ÒÈ ¼ö»êÈÀÎȸ¼®ÀÇ °ñÀç»ý´É·Â
Bone regeneration of the fluoridated hydroxyapatite and the bio-glass in the rabbit cranium defect model
¾ÈÈ¿ÁØ, ÇѼ¼Áø, ±è°æ¿í,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾ÈÈ¿ÁØ ( Ahn Hyo-Joon ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
ÇѼ¼Áø ( Han Se-Jin ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
±è°æ¿í ( Kim Kyung-Wook ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
KMID : 0355620110370050380
Abstract
Introduction:Hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2, HA) is the main inorganic phase of human hard tissue that is used widely as the repair material for bones. When HA is applied to a bony defect, however, it can be encapsulated with fibrous tissue and float in the implanted area due to a lack of consolidation. Bioceramics as allogenic graft materials are added to HA to improve the rate and bone healing capacity. Fluoridated hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH,F)2, FHA), where F- partially replaces the OH- in hydroxyapatite, is considered a good alternative material for bone repair owing to its solubility and biocompatibility.
Materials and Methods :This study was designed to determine the bone healing capacity of FHA newly produced as a nanoscale fiber in the laboratory. HA and FHA with bioglass was implanted in a rabbit cranium defect and the specimen was analysed histologically.
Results:1. At 4 weeks, fibrous connective tissue and little bone formation was observed around the materials of the experimental group I implanted HA and bioglass. Newly formed bone was observed around the materials in the experimental group II implanted FHA and bioglass. 2. At 8 weeks, the amount of newly formed and matured bone was higher in experimental group II than in experimental group I and the control group.
Conclusion:These results suggest that FHA and bioglass is a relatively favorable bone substitute with biocompatibility and better bone healing capacity than pure HA and bioglass.
Å°¿öµå
Durapatite; Fluor-hydroxylapatite; Bioglass; Bone Substitutes
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸