Estudo comparativo experimental de compósito bioativo de matriz polimérica para aplicação em cirurgia plástica ocular na substituição tecidual

8Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare two new biomaterials: Composite 10% (Engineering School - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - UFMG - Brazil) and Composite 20% (Engineering School - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - UFMG - Brazil), with two similar materials as control: Medpor™ (Porex Surgical Inc. - USA) e Polipore™ (Homus Com. Ind. Ltda - BRASIL). Methods: In vivo randomized experimental double blind study: a transconjunctival approach was performed in both cartilaginous superior orbital walls of 28 rabbits for 56 implants divided into 4 groups: GI: Composite 10%/Medpor™; GII: Composite 10%/ Polipore™; GIII: Composite 20%/Medpor™; GIV: Composite 20%/Polipore™. The mean rate for implant time of permanence was 19.7 weeks. The Student's t test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Revealed similar biocompatibility of all materials and none of the implants was extruded; one Composite 20% had partial exposure. Histomorphometry showed a greater bioactivity of the composites with significantly thicker fibrous encapsulation, with more collagen and fibroblasts, exuberant angiogenesis, and a lower inflammatory cell mean compared to controls. The presence of precipitation of a hydroxycarbonate apatite layer, which acts as an implant-tissue bond was confirmed. Composites presented a smaller tissular invasion index of the pores compared to controls. Conclusions: The composites showed a good biocompatibility and some additional advantage over the Medpor™ and Polipore™ controls.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

França, V. P., De Figueiredo, A. R. P., Vasconcelos, A. C., & Oréfice, R. L. (2005). Estudo comparativo experimental de compósito bioativo de matriz polimérica para aplicação em cirurgia plástica ocular na substituição tecidual. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 68(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492005000400003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free