Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2025
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Screening of Hydroxyapatite Biomaterials for Alveolar Augmentation Using a Rat Calvaria Critical-Size Defect Model:
Cristiano Susin1, Jaebum Lee1, Tiago Fiorini1,2
1Laboratory for Applied Periodontal & Craniofacial Research (LAPCR), Division of Comprehensive Oral Health, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Background:
Natural (bovine-/equine-/porcine-derived) or synthetic hydroxyapatite (HA) biomaterials appear to be the preferred technologies among clinicians for bone augmentation procedures in preparation for implant dentistry. The aim of this study was to screen candidate HA biomaterials intended for alveolar ridge augmentation relative to their potential to support local bone formation/maturation and to assess biomaterial resorption using a routine critical-size rat calvaria defect model.
Methods:
Eighty adult male Sprague Dawley outbred rats obtained from a approved-breeder, randomized into groups of ten, were used. The calvaria defects (ø8 mm) either received sham surgery (empty control), Bio-Oss (bovine HA/reference control), or candidate biomaterials including bovine HA (Cerabone, DirectOss, 403Z013), and bovine (403Z014) or synthetic HA/ß-TCP (Reprobone, Ceraball) constructs. An 8 wk healing interval was used to capture the biomaterials' resolution.
Results:
All biomaterials displayed biocompatibility. Strict HA biomaterials showed limited, if any, signs of biodegradation/resorption, with the biomaterial area fraction ranging from 22% to 42%. Synthetic HA/ß-TCP constructs showed limited evidence of biodegradation/erosion (biomaterial area fraction ≈30%). Mean linear defect closure in the sham-surgery control approximated 40%. Mean linear defect closure for the Bio-Oss reference control approximated 18% compared with 15-35% for the candidate biomaterials without significant differences between the controls and candidate biomaterials.
Conclusions:
None of the candidate HA biomaterials supported local bone formation/maturation beyond the native regenerative potential of this rodent model, pointing to their limitations for regenerative procedures. Biocompatibility and biomaterial dimensional stability could suggest their potential utility as long-term defect fillers.
