A preliminary report of percutaneous craniofacial osteoplasty in a rat calvarium

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis To evaluate the potential for injectable, permanent bone augmentation by assessing the biocompatability and bioactivity of subperiosteal hydroxylapatite (Radiesse) deposition in a rat model. Study Design Randomized controlled animal model. Methods Fourteen adult Sprague Dawley rats were injected in the parietal skull with 0.2 ml of hydroxylapatite (10 animals) or 0.2 ml of a carrier gel control (4 animals), using a subperiosteal injection technique on the right and a subcutaneous injection technique on the left. At 1, 3, and 6 months, three rats (1 negative control, 2 variables) were sacrificed and the calvaria were harvested. At 12 months, the remaining five rats were sacrificed. After each harvest, the specimens were processed and then examined under both light and polarized microscopy for new bone growth at the injection sites. Results The inflammatory response was limited with both hydroxylapatite and carrier injections. Injectables were still present 12 months after the injection. New bone formation was only observed when the injection was located deep to a disrupted periosteum The odds of new bone formation was 48.949 times higher (95% confidence intervals CI [2.637, 3759.961]; P = 0.002) with subperiosteal hydroxylapatite injections compared to all other combinations of injection plane and injectable. Conclusions This preliminary report of subperiosteal hydroxylapatite (Radiesse) injection in a rat model has verified the biocompatibility of injectable hydroxylapatite at the bony interface and suggests the potential for new bone formation. Level of Evidence N/A. Laryngoscope, 124:1550–1553, 2014

In vitro and in vivo biocompatibility of calcium‐phosphate scaffolds three‐dimensional printed by stereolithography for bone regeneration

“…, HA and HA-TCP scaffolds induce early foreign body responses and, in the present study, few giant cells were noticed in the histological sections, although in a lesser extent. The principal application of this model is the assessment of solid and injectable biomaterials in terms of bone formation(Camilli, da Cunha, Bertran, & Kawachi, 2004;Eryilmaz et al, 2011;Fujimoto et al, 1999;Hao et al, 2015;Hao et al, 2018;Kisiel, Klar, Martino, Ventura, & Hilborn, 2013;Linde, Thorén, Dahlin, & Sandberg, 1993;Mordenfeld, Hallman, & Lindskog, 2011;Parkes, Greywoode, O'Hara, Heffelfinger, & Krein, 2014;Zellin This was in accordance with the quantitative μCT analysis showing high bone tissue percentages already after 3 months post-implantation within the VOI.…”

“…The rat subperiosteal cranial model has already been described in the literature. The principal application of this model is the assessment of solid and injectable biomaterials in terms of bone formation (Camilli, da Cunha, Bertran, & Kawachi, 2004;Eryilmaz et al, 2011;Fujimoto et al, 1999;Hao et al, 2015;Hao et al, 2018;Kisiel, Klar, Martino, Ventura, & Hilborn, 2013;Linde, Thorén, Dahlin, & Sandberg, 1993;Mordenfeld, Hallman, & Lindskog, 2011;Parkes, Greywoode, O'Hara, Heffelfinger, & Krein, 2014;Zellin & Linde, 1999). By contrast to classical critical-size defect models involving invasive surgery with non-negligible inter-individual variability, the subperiosteal cranial model seems to offer a rapid, reproducible, and easy to perform way to evaluate biomaterial biocompatibility and bone formation performances (Kisiel et al, 2013;Muschler, Raut, Patterson, Wenke, & Hollinger, 2009).…”