Comparison of Bone Dust With Other Types of Bone Grafts for Cranioplasty

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKaramese, Mehtap
dc.contributor.authorToksoz, Mustafa Rasid
dc.contributor.authorSelimoglu, Muhammed Nebil
dc.contributor.authorAkdag, Osman
dc.contributor.authorToy, Hatice
dc.contributor.authorTosun, Zekeriya
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:23:27Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:23:27Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Split calvarial bone graft is preferred in the reconstruction of calvarial defects. However, it is not feasible for use in some challenging cases and in children. Particulate bone graft containing viable osteoblasts could be an attractive alternative. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 female rats were randomly separated into 4 groups. Full-thickness bone graft from rat calvaria was harvested in diameters of 8 x 8 mm. In group 1, the periosteum and skin were closed without any bone graft; bone dust particles were placed in group 2; bone fragments were placed in group 3; and full-thickness cranial bone graft was placed in group 4. After 12 weeks, all rats were killed. Degrees of resorption, foreign body reaction, and bone spicule length were assessed histologically, and an immunohistochemical study was used to show bone graft viability. Results: In graft viability, osteogenesis, and osteoblastic differentiation, groups 3 and 4 were similar and superior to groups 1 and 2. No osteoblastic activity and no viable bone dust were detected in groups 1 and 2. Resorption was observed in every preparate that contains bone tissue, and foreign body reaction was prominent in small bone groups, such as in group 2. Conclusions: In the full-thickness cranial bone graft group and the bone fragment group, the preservation of bone viability was obviously superior to the bone dust group and the periosteum-only group. In conclusion, bone dust behaved like the periosteum and could not create new bone, whereas bone particles behaved like the full-thickness cranial bone graft and were capable of preserving viability.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSelcuk Universty Science Research Centeren_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSupported by the Selcuk Universty Science Research Center.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0000000000000765
dc.identifier.endpage1158en_US
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25006886en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84904211503en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1155en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000765
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/13556
dc.identifier.volume25en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000340257800048en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Craniofacial Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBone Graft Viabilityen_US
dc.subjectOsteoblastic Activityen_US
dc.subjectBone Dusten_US
dc.subjectBone Graften_US
dc.subjectBone Fragmenten_US
dc.titleComparison of Bone Dust With Other Types of Bone Grafts for Cranioplastyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu