1. Osteoinductivity potential of rhBMP-2 associated with two carriers in different dosages.
- Author
-
Abdala PM, Iyomasa MM, Sato S, Bentley MV, Pitol DL, Regalo SC, Siéssere S, and Issa JP
- Subjects
- Animals, Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Male, Rats, Rats, Wistar, Skull physiology, Bone Morphogenetic Proteins administration & dosage, Bone Morphogenetic Proteins pharmacology, Drug Carriers administration & dosage, Drug Carriers pharmacology, Glycerides administration & dosage, Glycerides pharmacology, Osteogenesis drug effects, Poloxamer administration & dosage, Poloxamer pharmacology, Recombinant Proteins administration & dosage, Recombinant Proteins pharmacology, Transforming Growth Factor beta administration & dosage, Transforming Growth Factor beta pharmacology
- Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate bone formation after application of different doses of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) combined with monoolein or poloxamer gels, in critical bone defects of rats. Forty-five Wistar rats were divided into nine treatment groups with five animals each: I: application of 1 µg rhBMP-2 + monoolein; II: 3 µg rhBMP-2 + monoolein; III: 7 µg rhBMP-2 + monoolein; IV: 1 µg rhBMP-2 + poloxamer; V: 3 µg rhBMP-2 + poloxamer; VI: 7 µg rhBMP-2 + poloxamer; VII: monoolein only; VIII: poloxamer only; and IX: critical bone defect only. A critical-sized defect of 6 mm diameter was produced in the left parietal bone and it was filled with gels of the above mentioned treatments. After 2 weeks, the calvarial bones were removed for histological processing. Bone formation in the groups that received poloxamer gel and rhBMP-2 was not significantly different from the control group (IX). Groups receiving monoolein and rhBMP-2 (1 and 3 µg) and those that received only the carriers (VII and VIII) had less bone formation in relation to the control. The association of rhBMP-2 to both poloxamer and monoolein did not exhibit any significant differentiation in bone formation in comparison with the control group.
- Published
- 2010
- Full Text
- View/download PDF