Drug design, development and therapy · 2015
The effects of amlodipine and platelet rich plasma on bone healing in rats.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Atalay Yusuf, Bozkurt Mehmet Fatih, Gonul Yucel, Cakmak Omer, Agacayak Kamil Serkan, Köse Ibrahim, Hazman Omer, Keles Hikmet, Turamanlar Ozan, Eroglu Mehmet
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine (AML), platelet rich plasma (PRP), and a mixture of both materials on bone healing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: group A, tibia defect model with no treatment; group B, tibia defect model treated with AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage; group C, tibia defect model treated with local PRP; group D, tibia defect model treated with local PRP and AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage.
RESULTS: At day 21, bone healing was significantly better in groups C and D compared to group A (P<0.05), but comparisons showed no statistically significant difference in group B (P>0.05). At day 30, groups B and C showed no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) compared to group A, but bone healing in group D was significantly better than in group A (P<0.05). Statistically, AML did not affect alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity at 21 and 30 days (P>0.05), but PRP and AML + PRP increased ALP activity statistically (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that AML had neither a positive nor a negative effect on bone healing, but when used in combination with PRP, it may be beneficial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: group A, tibia defect model with no treatment; group B, tibia defect model treated with AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage; group C, tibia defect model treated with local PRP; group D, tibia defect model treated with local PRP and AML, 0.04 mg daily by oral gavage.
RESULTS: At day 21, bone healing was significantly better in groups C and D compared to group A (P<0.05), but comparisons showed no statistically significant difference in group B (P>0.05). At day 30, groups B and C showed no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) compared to group A, but bone healing in group D was significantly better than in group A (P<0.05). Statistically, AML did not affect alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity at 21 and 30 days (P>0.05), but PRP and AML + PRP increased ALP activity statistically (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that AML had neither a positive nor a negative effect on bone healing, but when used in combination with PRP, it may be beneficial.