Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026
Descriptive Histological and Histomorphometrical Comparison of Four Xenogeneic and Synthetic Bone Blocks for Mandibular Onlay Augmentation in Rabbits.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Honda Souichiro, Botticelli Daniele, Silva Erick Ricardo, Xavier Samuel Porfirio, Iezzi Giovanna, Seo Hitoshi, Baba Shunsuke
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This exploratory study provided a primarily descriptive comparison of two xenogeneic and two synthetic blocks for mandibular onlay augmentation in rabbits.
METHODS: Twelve rabbits received bilateral block grafts, providing 24 sites allocated to Bio-Oss® Block, SP-Block, ReproBone® Block, or Alos Block (n = 6/material). After 10 weeks, undecalcified sections were evaluated within standardized inferior and superior regions. Newly formed bone was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included residual graft, IBN-like tissue, soft-tissue components, and cross-sectional augmented area. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering within animals.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in newly formed bone percentage was detected among biomaterials (p = 0.475). Residual graft differed significantly (p < 0.001) and was lower for all test materials than for Bio-Oss® Block. ReproBone® Block consistently exhibited IBN-like tissue (17.3 ± 2.9%). SP-Block showed more intra-compartment soft tissue than Bio-Oss® Block. Alos Block had the smallest augmented area (12.9 ± 6.1 mm2; adjusted p = 0.001 versus Bio-Oss® Block), and extra-compartment soft tissue was present in five of six sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Although newly formed bone percentages did not differ significantly, the biomaterials displayed distinct profiles of scaffold persistence, incorporation, tissue organization, and cross-sectional augmented area at 10 weeks. These features should be considered together when evaluating block biomaterials for onlay augmentation.
METHODS: Twelve rabbits received bilateral block grafts, providing 24 sites allocated to Bio-Oss® Block, SP-Block, ReproBone® Block, or Alos Block (n = 6/material). After 10 weeks, undecalcified sections were evaluated within standardized inferior and superior regions. Newly formed bone was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included residual graft, IBN-like tissue, soft-tissue components, and cross-sectional augmented area. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering within animals.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in newly formed bone percentage was detected among biomaterials (p = 0.475). Residual graft differed significantly (p < 0.001) and was lower for all test materials than for Bio-Oss® Block. ReproBone® Block consistently exhibited IBN-like tissue (17.3 ± 2.9%). SP-Block showed more intra-compartment soft tissue than Bio-Oss® Block. Alos Block had the smallest augmented area (12.9 ± 6.1 mm2; adjusted p = 0.001 versus Bio-Oss® Block), and extra-compartment soft tissue was present in five of six sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Although newly formed bone percentages did not differ significantly, the biomaterials displayed distinct profiles of scaffold persistence, incorporation, tissue organization, and cross-sectional augmented area at 10 weeks. These features should be considered together when evaluating block biomaterials for onlay augmentation.