Comparing three different three-dimensional scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: an in vivo study.

INTRODUCTION Three-dimensional Scaffold structure of synthetic biomaterials with their interconnected spaces seem to be a safe and effective option in supporting bone regeneration. The aim of this animal study was to compare the effectiveness of three different biocompatible scaffolds: bioglass (BG), demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and forstrite (FR). MATERIALS AND METHODS Four healthy dogs were anesthetized and the first to fourth premolars were extracted atraumatically in each quadrant. After healing, linear incision was prepared from molar to anterior segment and 4 defects in each quadrant (16 defects in each dog) were prepared. Scaffold blocks of BG, DBM and FR were resized according to size of defects and placed in the 12 defects randomly, 4 defects remained as control group. The dogs were sacrificed in 4 time intervals (15, 30, 45 and 60 days after) and the percentage of different types of regenerated bones (lamellar and woven) and connective tissue were recorded in histological process. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post hoc using SPSS software Ver. 15 at significant level of 0.05. RESULTS In day 30th, although the amount of regenerated lamellar bone in control, DBM and BG Scaffold (22.37±3.44; 21.46±1.96; 21.21±0.96) were near to each, the FR Scaffold provided the highest amount of lamellar (29.71±7. 94) and woven bone (18.28±2.35). Also, FRS caffold showed significant difference with BG (p=0.026) and DBM Scaffolds (p=0.032) in regenerated lamellar bone. CONCLUSION We recommend paying more attention to FR Scaffold as a biomaterial, but it is better to be compared with other nano biomaterials in future studies.