title: A comparison of ProOsteon, DBX, and collagraft in a rabbit model.
abstract: Many bone graft substitutes (BGSs) have been developed and are commercially available. These products differ in the tailoring of their properties, including size, form, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and resorption kinetics. Differential enhancement of these properties may optimize the performance of these materials for varying applications. BGSs offer an opportunity to lessen morbidity of harvesting and use of autogenous and/or allograft bone. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively compare the magnitude of bony ingrowth and biodegradation of different commercially available BGS materials in a rabbit femoral defect model. BGSs from each of three classes (ceramic (ProOsteon), demineralized bone matrix (DBX), and composite (Collagraft)) were implanted in cylindrical defects in bilateral femoral condyles of 12 adult New Zealand White rabbits. Each of the three BGS materials and the empty controls were compared. The specimens were harvested at 3 months postimplantation for radiographic and histologic evaluation. Histomorphometry yielded resorption of graft material remaining in the index defect. Magnitude of bony ingrowth was assessed based on an 8-bit 256 densitometry model. Histomorphometric analysis of the data demonstrated statistical differences in the resorption and magnitude of bony ingrowth of the three BGS materials. The three BGS were significantly different for ingrowth (p = 0.046) when using the Wilcoxon Test. The ceramic graft material averaged 47% bony ingrowth. Rabbit-based DBX material showed extensive osseous ingrowth (35%) and the composite graft material demonstrated significant bony ingrowth (56%). The control, as anticipated, showed the least amount of bony ingrowth (29%). Fisher's Exact Test yielded statistical differences (p = 0.0003) when comparisons for resorption were conducted. An ideal BGS material should be biocompatible, be able to withstand the local load environment for a given application, degrade in concert with bony replacement, and be both osteoinductive and osteoconductive. This in-vivo, head-to-head comparison of three commercially available BGS materials in an animal model compares these characteristics and demonstrates differences between them, which may act as a guide in the use of these products in human applications.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
authors.forename: John A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Leupold
authors.forename: William R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Barfield
authors.forename: Yuehuei H
authors.initials: YH
authors.lastname: An
authors.forename: Langdon A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Hartsock
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D018775:Bone Demineralization Technique; D001857:Bone Matrix; D018786:Bone Substitutes; D002130:Calcium Phosphates; D002516:Ceramics; D003094:Collagen; D005260:Female; D023421:Models, Animal; D011817:Rabbits
chemical_list: D018786:Bone Substitutes; D002130:Calcium Phosphates; C000591213:ProOsteon; C065819:Collagraft; D003094:Collagen