Advances in Osteoarthritis pp 286-296 | Cite as
Responses in the Underlying Bone During Migration of Hydroxyapatite Grafts in the Growing Rabbit
Summary
To clarify whether local bone turnover underneath hydroxyapatite grafts differs in nasal and mandibular bones, a single porous hydroxyapatite block was implanted on the respective surface of the right nasal bone and the mandibular ramus in 40 rabbits at the age of 4 weeks. The undecalcified sections of the bone specimens underneath the graft were histomorpho-metrically measured under a light microscope. In all grafted specimens, the hydroxyapatite graft was united, but sinking of the grafts proceeded during 16 weeks. In the nasal bone, bone area density beneath the graft was significantly decreased within 3 weeks and continued to be diminished thereafter. In the mandibular ramus, however, bone area density was maintained at a similar level to that of the sham-operated side. In the nasal bone, the parameters of mineralizing surface and bone formation rates obtained by fluorescence labels were significantly reduced. In the mandibular bone, however, these parameters of bone formation were significantly increased. Mineral apposition rates were reduced in either bone. The parameters of osteoclasts obtained by tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining were significantly increased in both the nasal and mandibular bones. These data clearly demonstrated that bone density and local turnover underneath the osteoblast recruitment in the face of increased bone resorption by the grafts depend on the intrinsic factors of individual bones. Osteoblast functions at a cellular level, however, appeared to be commonly disturbed in the neighboring bone of the hydroxyapatite grafts.
Key Words
Hydroxyapatite Bone density Osteoblast Osteoclast HistomorphometryPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Motoie PA, Nakamura T, O’uchi N, et al (1995) Effects of the bisphosphonate YM175 on bone mineral density, strength, structure and turnover in ovari-ectomized beagles on concomitant dietary calcium restriction. J Bone Miner Res 10:91–920Google Scholar
- 2.Salyer KE, Hall CD (1989) Porous hydroxyapatite as an onlay bone-graft substitute for maxillofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:236–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Oonishi H, Yamamoto M, Ishimaru H, et al (1989) The effect of hydroxyapatite coating on bone growth into porous titanium alloy implants. J Bone Joint Surg 71:213–216Google Scholar
- 4.Fearon JA, Munro A (1995) Observations on the use of rigid fixation for craniofacial deformities in infants and young children. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:634–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Arakaki M, Yamashita S, Mutaf M, et al (1995) Onlay silicone and hydroxyapatite-tricalciumphosphate composite (HAP-TCP) blocks interfere with nasal bone growth in rabbits. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 32:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Yanagisawa A, Nakamura T, Arakaki M, et al (1997) Migration of hydroxyapatite onlays into the mandible and nasal bone and local bone turnover in growing rabbits. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1972–1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Basle MF, Chappard D, Grixon F, et al (1993) Osteoclastic resorption of Ca-P biomaterials implanted in rabbit bone. Calcif Tissue Int 53:348–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bang S, Enlow DH (1967) Postnatal growth of the rabbit mandible. Arch Oral Biol 12:993–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Zins JE, Kusiak JF, Whitaker LA, et al (1984) The influence of the recipient site on bone grafts to the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:371–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Murakami H, Nakamura T, Tsurukami H, et al (1994) Effects of tiludronate on bone mass, structure, and turnover at the epiphyseal, primary, and secondary spongiosa in the proximal tibia of growing rats after sciatic neurectomy. J Bone Miner Res 9:1355–1364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Parfitt AM, Drezner MK, Glorieux FH, et al (1987) Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res 2:595–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Holmes RE (1979) Bone regeneration within a coralline hydroxyapatite implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 63:626–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Uchida A, Nade SML, McCartney ER, et al (1984) A comparative study of three different porous ceramics. J Bone Joint Surg 66B:269–278Google Scholar
- 14.Nguyen L, Dewhrist FE, Hauschka PV, et al (1991) Interleukin-1 beta stimulates bone resorption and inhibits bone formation in vivo. Lymphokine Cytokine Res 10:15–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bertolini DR, Nedwin GE, Bringman TS, et al (1986) Stimulation of bone resorption and inhibition of bone formation in vitro by human tumor necrosis factors. Nature (Lond) 319:516–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Stashenko P, Dewhrist FE, Rooney ML, et al (1987) Interleukin-1 beta is a potent inhibitor of bone formation in vitro. J Bone Miner Res 2:559–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar