Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Quantitative results of the analysis of two types of bone particles corresponding to the work "A comprehensive analysis of two types of xenogeneic bone particles for use in maxillofacial bone regeneration therapies"

Authors: Alaminos, Miguel;

Quantitative results of the analysis of two types of bone particles corresponding to the work "A comprehensive analysis of two types of xenogeneic bone particles for use in maxillofacial bone regeneration therapies"

Abstract

This dataset corresponds to the quantitative data generated in the work entitled "A comprehensive analysis of two types of xenogeneic bone particles for use in maxillofacial bone regeneration therapies". Regeneration of maxillofacial bone structures is challenging. One of the strategies applied to bone damage repair is the use of bone filler particles, and different types of these particles have been tested. In this work, we analyzed the regenerative potential of deproteinized bone particles (DP) and collagen-based bone particles (CP) to determine the potential of each biomaterial in bone repair. Results of the structural analysis using scanning electron microscopy and 3D scanning showed that DP and CP were structurally similar, and consisted of a heterogeneous mixture of bone particles of different sizes and shapes. Then, ex vivo analyses using morphological evaluation, LIVE & DEAD and quantification of DNA released to the medium demonstrated that CP and DP were highly biocompatible when used in direct and in indirect contact with human cells, at 24, 48 and 72h of follow-up. Then, when both particles were grafted for 2 months on Wistar rats in which a critical defect had been generated at the mandible bone. Results of the computed tomography analysis showed a significant reduction of the bone defect in the CP group, but not in the DP group, as compared with negative controls devoid of any bone particles. Histological analysis of the graft area revealed that both particles were biocompatible in vivo, and a regenerative tissue with collagen fibers and mineralized spots was found in CP and DP, with higher number of mineralized spots in DP. Histochemistry and immunohistochemistry analyses confirmed the presence of collagen, proteoglycans and osteocalcin at the regeneration area of CP and DP. In general, these results confirm the biocompatibility of both types of particles and that both were able to induce maxillofacial bone regeneration, especially in the case of CP. Future studies should determine their clinical usefulness in patients with cleft palate, mandibular damage and other maxillofacial applications.

Dataset contains the quantitative results corresponding to the in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo characterization of two types of bone particles used in bone regeneration: Deproteinized particles (DP) consisting of a bone mineral matrix subjected to deproteinization. Collagen-based particles (CP) composed of a bone matrix of collagen and hydroxyapatite.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Bone Regeneration, Tissue engineering, Bone Particles, Maxillofacial Bones

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average