Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery

, Volume 106, Issue 6, pp 335–340 | Cite as

Bone matrix and marrow versus cancellous bone in rabbit radial defects

  • P. Aspenberg
  • J. Wittbjer
  • K. -G. Thorngren
Original Articles

Summary

Implants of demineralized bone matrix induce new bone formation. In order to estimate the possible clinical usefulness of this phenomenon, autologous cancellous bone grafts were compared with composite grafts of bone matrix and marrow. Cancellous bone from the tuber ischii of the rabbit was transplanted to a preformed radial defect in the same animal. On the opposite side, a similar defect was filled with a mixture of either allogenous or autogenous bone-matrix particles and autogenous bone marrow. After 25 days, calcium 45 was injected intravenously. Three days later the animals were killed. Standardized segments of the rabbit's forearms, containing the middle of the defect, were cut out, ashed, and analyzed for 45Ca activity. No side difference in 45Ca deposition was found. The callus ash weight of the allogenous matrix-transplanted side was approximately 60% of that of the cancellous bone side. This side difference of ash weights corresponds to the estimated initial mineral content of the cancellous graft. Nontransplanted defects had very low ash weight and 45Ca activity. Thus, in the rabbit, composite grafts of bone matrix and marrow produce a bone yield comparable to that of cancellous bone.

Keywords

Cancellous Bone Bone Matrix Demineralized Bone Matrix Autogenous Bone Composite Graft 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrektsson T (1979) Healing of bone grafts. Thesis, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspenberg P, Wittbjer J, Thorngren K-G (1986) Particulated bone matrix as an injectable bone graft in rabbit radius defects. Clin Orthop 206:261–269Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer FCH, Nilsson OS, Törnkvist H (1984) Formation and resorption of bone induced by decalcified bone matrix in rats. Clin Orthop 191:139–143Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burwell RG (1964) Studies in the transplantation of bone. VII. The fresh composite homograft-autograft of cancellous bone. An analysis of factors leading to osteogenesis in marrow-containing bone grafts. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 46:110–140Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glowacky J, Murray JE, Kaban LB, Folkman J, Mulliken JB (1981) Application of the biological principle of induced osteogenesis for craniofacial defects. Lancet 1:959–962Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindholm TS, Nilsson OS, Lindholm TC (1982) Extraskeletal and intraskeletal new bone formation induced by demineralized bone matrix combined with bone marrow. Clin Orthop 171:251–255Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oikarinen J (1982) Experimental spinal fusion with decalcified bone matrix and deep-frozen allogenic bone in rabbits. Clin Orthop 167:210–218Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peck WA, Reddi AH, Gordon SL (1984) Local mechanism that regulate bone formation: the subject of a recent NIH-sponsored workshop. Editorial. Calcif Tissue Int 36:1–3Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rönningen H, Solheim L, Langeland N (1985) Bone formation enhanced by induction. Bone growth in titanium implants in rats. Acta Orthop Scand 56:67–71Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simmons DJ, Lesker PA, Ellsasser JC (1975) Survival of osteocompetent marrow cells in vitro and the effect of PHA stimulation on osteoinduction in composite bone grafts. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 148:986–990Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simmons DJ, Loeffelman K, Frier C, McCoy R, Friedman B, Melville S, Kaku AJ (1984) Circadian changes in the osteogenic competence of marrow stromal cells. In: Haus E, Kabat HF (eds) Chronobiology 1982–1983. Karger, Basel, pp 37–42Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Syftestad GT, Urist MR (1979) Degradation of bone matrix morphogenetic activity by pulverization. Clin Orthop 141:281–286Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takagi K, Urist MR (1982) The role of bone marrow in bone morphogenetic proline-induced repair of massive diaphyseal defects. Clin Orthop 171:224–231Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tuli SM, Gupta KB (1981) Bridging of large chronic osteoperiosteal gaps by allogenic decalcified bone matrix implants in rabbits. J Trauma 21:894–898Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urist MR (1981) Bone transplants and implants. In: Urist MR (ed) Fundamental and clinical bone physiology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 331–368Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Urist MR (1983) Chemosterilized antigen-extracted surface-demineralized autolysed allogeneic (AAA) bone for arthrodesis. In: Friedlander GE, Mankin H, Sell KW (eds) Osteochondral grafts. Little, Brown & Co, Boston, pp 193–201Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittbjer J, Palmer B, Thorngren K-G (1982) Osteogenetic properties of reimplanted decalcified and undecalcified autologous bone in the rabbit radius. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 16:239–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Aspenberg
    • 1
  • J. Wittbjer
    • 2
  • K. -G. Thorngren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity HospitalLundSweden
  2. 2.Maxillofacial Center in MalmöLund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations