Експериментальне порівняння репаративних процесів у кісткових дефектах щелеп кроликів за використання біологічних і синтетичних матеріалів

Oleksandr Liubchenko; Vladyslav Petrashko

doi:10.33295/1992-576X-2026-2-ERSR-1

Authors

Oleksandr Liubchenko Kharkiv National Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0368-2189
Vladyslav Petrashko Kharkiv National Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8326-0491

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576X-2026-2-ERSR-1

Keywords:

bone regeneration, mandible, rabbits, bone grafting materials, xenogeneic matrix, hydroxyapatite, β-tricalcium phosphate, Bauers®, Straumann®, BoneCeramic®, ABGraft®, Maxresorb®

Abstract

Background. Choosing the optimal bone grafting material remains a critical issue in maxillofacial surgery, particularly given the growing need for effective import substitution. The domestic market features both conventional synthetic materials (specifically, β-TCP ceramics) and xenogenic collagen-containing matrices. Recently, Ukrainian-manufactured products, such as the Bauers^® xenograft and ABGraft^® synthetic hydroxyapatite, have been actively introduced into clinical practice for alveolar ridge augmentation.

Objective. This study aimed to experimentally evaluate and compare the reparative processes in mandibular bone defects of rabbits using bone graft substitutes with different structural architectures: highly porous matrices (Straumann^® BoneCeramic^®, Bauers^®) and standard synthetic materials (Maxresorb^®, ABGraft^®) without the addition of autologous platelet-rich fibrin (PRF).

Materials and Methods. The study was conducted on 16 male New Zealand White rabbits (age: 6–8 months, weight: 2.5–3.0 kg), divided into four equal groups (n = 4). Standardized box-shaped bone defects measuring 5 × 3 mm were formed in the region of the mandibular angle. The outcomes were evaluated radiographically (using the bone fill index) and histomorphometrically (osteocyte density, vascularization rate) on days 30 and 60 post-surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA followed by Scheffé’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05).

Results. On day 60, the bone fill values were as follows: Straumann^® — 68.5 ± 4.2 %, Bauers^® — 64.2 ± 3.9 %, Maxresorb^® — 52.3 ± 3.6 %, ABGraft^® — 48.7 ± 4.4 %. The Straumann^® and Bauers^® groups significantly outperformed the other groups (p = 0.002). The domestic Bauers^® material demonstrated statistical equivalence to Straumann^® (a difference of only 4.3 %, p = 0.084). Osteocyte density on day 60 (cells per field of view) was also significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the leading groups: Straumann^® — 56,7 ± 5,8; Bauers^® — 53,4 ± 5,2; Maxresorb^® — 44,1 ± 4,7; ABGraft^® — 41,8 ± 4,3. It was established that Bauers^® and Straumann^® provided a more dynamic increase in bone filling within the 30–60 day interval compared to Maxresorb^® and ABGraft^®, indicating the high osteoconductive potential of the Ukrainian xenograft.

Conclusions. It has been experimentally proven that highly effective macroporous materials (Straumann^® and Bauers^®) possess a substantial advantage over Maxresorb^® and ABGraft^® in terms of their osteoconductive properties. The domestic Bauers^® xenograft is experimentally equivalent to the imported Straumann^® BoneCeramic^® matrix, confirming its high quality and suitability for import substitution, while offering cost savings of 250–350 USD/g without compromising osteoplastic efficiency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Vyrva, O. E., & Holovakha, M. L. (2020). Modern approaches to bone plastic surgery in traumatology and orthopedics. Orthopedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics, 4, 45–52. [Вирва, О. Є., & Головаха, М. Л. (2020). Сучасні підходи до кісткової пластики в травматології та ортопедії. Ортопедія, травматологія і протезування, 4, 45–52].

Yakovenko, L. M. et al. (2022). Peculiarities of jaw bone tissue regeneration during dental implantation. Journal of Dentistry, 2, 112–120. [Яковенко, Л. М. та ін. (2022). Особливості регенерації кісткової тканини щелеп при дентальній імплантації. Вісник стоматології, 2, 112–120].

Prysiazhniuk, O. et al. (2025). War-related maxillofacial injuries in Ukraine: a retrospective multicenter study. Arc. Craniofac. Surg., 26(2), 51–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2024.0074.

Fillingham, Y., & Jacobs, J. (2016). Bone grafts and their substitutes. Bone Joint J, 98-B(1), 6–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B.36350.

Meara, J. G., Leather, A. J. M., Hagander, L. et al. (2015). Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. The Lancet, 386(9993), 569–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X.

Dobrovolska, O. V. (2019). Comparative characteristics of osteoplastic materials of domestic production. Implantology. Periodontology. Osteology, 3, 56–64. [Добровольська, О. В. (2019). Порівняльна характеристика остеопластичних матеріалів вітчизняного виробництва. Імплантологія. Пародонтологія. Остеологія, 3, 56–64].

Wang, W., & Yeung, K. W. K. (2017). Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Bioactive Materials, 2(4), 224–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007.

Elgali, I., Omar, O., Dahlin, C., & Thomsen, P. (2017). Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur. J. Oral Sci., 125(5), 315–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12364.

Sheikh, Z., Sima, C., & Glogauer, M. (2015). Bone replacement materials and techniques. Materials, 8(6), 2953–2993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8062953.

Chiapasco, M., & Casentini, P. (2018). Horizontal bone-augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Periodontology 2000, 77(1), 213–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12219.

Buser, D., Chappuis, V., Bornstein, M. M., et al. (2013). Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up. J. Periodontol., 84(11), 1517–1527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2013.120635.

Jensen, S. S., & Terheyden, H. (2009). Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 24, 218–236. PMID: 19885447.

Zhang, J., Li, S., He, H., et al. (2024). Clinical guidelines for indications, techniques, and complications of autogenous bone grafting. Chin. Med. J., 137(1), 5–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002691.

Dobrovolska, O.V., & Yakovenko, L.M. (2023). Domestic biomaterials for bone grafting: economic and clinical aspects. Implantology, 1, 34–42. [Добровольська, О. В., & Яковенко, Л. М. (2023). Вітчизняні біоматеріали для кісткової пластики: економічні та клінічні аспекти. Імплантологія, 1, 34–42].

Naini, A.Y., Kobravi, S., Jafari, A., et al. (2024). Comparing the effects of Bone+B® xenograft and InterOss® xenograft bone material on rabbit calvaria bone defect regeneration. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res., 10(3), e875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.875.

Amid, R., Kadkhodazadeh, M., Kheiri, A., Esfandiari, S. (2024). Comparison of the healing process of xenografts with three different sources in critical-size bone defects: An in vivo study. J. Adv. Periodontol. Implant. Dent., 16(1), 22–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.004.

Łuczak, J. W., Palusińska, M., Matak, D., et al. (2024). The Future of Bone Repair: Emerging Technologies and Biomaterials in Bone Regeneration. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 25(23), e12766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms252312766.

Bohner, M., Santoni, B.L.G., & Döbelin, N. (2020). β-tricalcium phosphate for bone substitution: Synthesis and properties. Acta Biomaterialia, 113, 23–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.06.022.

Valencia-Llano, C.H., López-Tenorio, D., & Grande-Tovar, C.D. (2022). Biocompatibility assessment of two commercial bone xenografts by in vitro and in vivo methods. Polymers, 14(13), e2672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14132672.

Aleynik, D. Ya., Zhivtscov, O. P., Yudin, V. V., et al. (2024). Specifics of Porous Polymer and Xenogeneic Matrices and of Bone Tissue Regeneration Related to Their Implantation into an Experimental Rabbit Defect. Polymers, 16(8), e1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16081165.

Hesaraki, S., Saba, G., & Shahrezaee, M., et al. (2024). Reinforcing β-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for potential applications in bone tissue engineering. Scientific Rep., 14, e19055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68419-2.

Wüster, J., Neckel, N., Sterzik, F., et al. (2024). Effect of synthetic hydroxyapatite-based bone grafting material compared to established bone substitute materials on regeneration of critical-size bone defects in ovine scapula. Regenerative Biomaterials, 11, rbae041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rb/rbae041.

Schlund, M., Depeyre, A., Ranganath, S.K., et al. (2022). Rabbit calvarial and mandibular critical-sized bone defects as an experimental model for the evaluation of craniofacial bone tissue regeneration. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 123(6), 601–609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.12.001.

Ranganath, S. K., Schlund, M., Delattre, J., et al. (2022). Bilateral double site (calvarial and mandibular) critical-size bone defect model in rabbits for evaluation of craniofacial bone tissue engineering constructs. Mater. Today Bio., 14, 100267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100267.

Zuhr O., Rebele, S.F., Cheung, S.L., et al. (2018). Surgery without papilla incision: tunneling flap procedures in plastic periodontal and implant surgery. Periodontology 2000, 77(1), 213–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12214.

Monir, A., Mukaibo, T., Abd El-Aal, A. B. M., et al. (2021). Local administration of HMGB-1 promotes bone regeneration on the critical-sized mandibular defects in rabbits. Scientific Rep., 11(1), 8930. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88195-7.

Daneshi, S. S., Tayebi, L., Talaei-Khozani, T., et al. (2024). Reconstructing Critical-Sized Mandibular Defects in a Rabbit Model: Enhancing Angiogenesis and Facilitating Bone Regeneration via a Cell-Loaded 3D-Printed Hydrogel-Ceramic Scaffold Application. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., 10(5), 3316–3330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c00580.

Dulnik, J., Jeznach, O., & Sajkiewicz, P. (2022). A Comparative Study of Three Approaches to Fibre’s Surface Functionalization. J. Funct. Biomater., 13(4), 272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040272.

Carlisle, P. L., Guda, T., Silliman, D. T., et al. (2019). Are critical size bone notch defects possible in the rabbit mandible? J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 45(2), 97–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.2.97.

Saulacic, N., Fujioka-Kobayashi, M., Kimura Y., et al. (2021). The effect of synthetic bone graft substitutes on bone formation in rabbit calvarial defects. J. Mater. Sc.: Materials in Medicine, 32(2), 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-020-06483-6.

Ou, K.-L., Hou, P.-J., Huang, B.-H., et al. (2020). Bone Healing and Regeneration Potential in Rabbit Cortical Defects Using an Innovative Bioceramics Bone Graft Substitute. Appl. Sci., 10(18), 6239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186239.

Li, Z., & Li, Z.-B. (2005). Repair of mandible defect with tissue engineering bone in rabbits. ANZ J. Surg., 75(11), 1017–1021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03586.x.

Abushama, A. A., Alim, N., AlTuraiki, A. M., et al. (2025). Comparison of xenograft and allograft bone graft for oral and maxillofacial surgical preparation prior to dental implantation: A systematic review. F1000Res., 14, 718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163924.1.