Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/comparison-of-coral-resorption-and-bone-apposition-with-two-natural-LgSp7tOhAz
References (9)
-
G. Guillemin, Patat Jl, J. Fournié, M. Chétail (1987)
The use of coral as a bone graft substitute.Journal of biomedical materials research, 21 5
-
F. Roux, D. Brasnu, B. Loty, B. George, G. Guillemin (1988)
Madreporic coral: a new bone graft substitute for cranial surgery.Journal of neurosurgery, 69 4
-
Donald Bren, E. Tchetgen (2022)
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral SciencesThe SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design
-
R. Chiroff, Eugene White, Jon Weber, Della Roy (1975)
Tissue ingrowth of Replamineform implants.Journal of biomedical materials research, 9 4
-
G. Guillemin, J. Fournié, J‐L. Patat, M. Chétail (1981)
Contribution à l'étude du devenir d'un fragment de squelette de corail Madréporaire implanté dans la diaphyse des os longs chez le chien, 293
-
A. Fontaine, B. Hall (1981)
Biocompatibility of echinoderm skeleton with mammalian cells in vitro: preliminary evidence.Journal of biomedical materials research, 15 1
-
R. Holmes, R. Bucholz, V. Mooney (1987)
Porous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute in diaphyseal defects: A histometric studyJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 5
-
Monique Chétatl, J. Fournie (1969)
Shell-Boring Mechanism of the Gastropod, Purpura (Thaïs) lapillus: a Physiological Demonstration of the Role of Carbonic Anhydrase in the Dissolution of CaCO3Integrative and Comparative Biology, 9
-
M. Simasaki, T. Yagi (1960)
Histochemistry of carbonic anhydrase with special reference to the osteoclast, 1
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1989 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
- ISSN
- 1549-3296
- eISSN
- 1552-4965
- DOI
- 10.1002/jbm.820230708
- pmid
- 2738087
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Previous studies showed that natural coral implanted into bone tissue was gradually resorbed and progressively replaced by newly formed bone. The objectives of this study were to compare the fate of two Madreporian corals, Porites and Acropora, after implantation during 1 and 2 months into sheep and pig long bones. These materials are identical in composition (CaCo3) but differ in volume (49 ± 2%, 12 ± 4%, respectively) and mean size (250 vs. 500 μm) of porosities. The non‐decalcified histological slices were observed under light microscopy. Implant resorption and new bone formation were quantified through an automatic image analysis system. Quantitative results showed that the larger the porosity volume, the greater was the coral resorption as well as the new bone apposition. Large differences were found between the two animal species. Histological findings were identical to those previously reported: implants were resorbed and progressively replaced by newly formed bone. Coral was found to be an osteoconductive biomaterial which acted as a scaffold for a direct osteoblastic apposition and consequently could be an interesting alternative to bone auto‐, allo‐, or xenografts.
Journal
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 1989