We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Mechanistic and Preclinical Assessment of BioRestore Bioactive Glass as a Synthetic Bone Graft Extender and Substitute for Osteoinduction and Spine Fusion.
Clinical Spine Surgery 2024 March 23
STUDY DESIGN: Preclinical animal study.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the osteoinductivity and bone regenerative capacity of BioRestore bioactive glass.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BioRestore is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved bone void filler that has not yet been evaluated as a bone graft extender or substitute for spine fusion.
METHODS: In vitro and in vivo methods were used to compare BioRestore with other biomaterials for the capacity to promote osteodifferentiation and spinal fusion. The materials evaluated (1) absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), (2) allograft, (3) BioRestore, (4) Human Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM), and (5) MasterGraft. For in vitro studies, rat bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) were cultured on the materials in either standard or osteogenic media (SM, OM), followed by quantification of osteogenic marker genes (Runx2, Osx, Alpl, Bglap, Spp1) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Sixty female Fischer rats underwent L4-5 posterolateral fusion (PLF) with placement of 1 of 5 implants: (1) ICBG from syngeneic rats; (2) ICBG+BioRestore; (3) BioRestore alone; (4) ICBG+Allograft; or (5) ICBG+MasterGraft. Spines were harvested 8 weeks postoperatively and evaluated for bone formation and fusion via radiography, blinded manual palpation, microCT, and histology.
RESULTS: After culture for 1 week, BioRestore promoted similar expression levels of Runx2 and Osx to cells grown on DBM. At the 2-week timepoint, the relative ALP activity for BioRestore-OM was significantly higher (P<0.001) than that of ACS-OM and DBM-OM (P<0.01) and statistically equivalent to cells grown on allograft-OM. In vivo, radiographic and microCT evaluation showed some degree of bridging bone formation in all groups tested, with the exception of BioRestore alone, which did not produce successful fusions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the capacity of BioRestore to promote osteoinductivity in vitro. In vivo, BioRestore performed similarly to commercially available bone graft extender materials but was incapable of producing fusion as a bone graft substitute.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the osteoinductivity and bone regenerative capacity of BioRestore bioactive glass.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BioRestore is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved bone void filler that has not yet been evaluated as a bone graft extender or substitute for spine fusion.
METHODS: In vitro and in vivo methods were used to compare BioRestore with other biomaterials for the capacity to promote osteodifferentiation and spinal fusion. The materials evaluated (1) absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), (2) allograft, (3) BioRestore, (4) Human Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM), and (5) MasterGraft. For in vitro studies, rat bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) were cultured on the materials in either standard or osteogenic media (SM, OM), followed by quantification of osteogenic marker genes (Runx2, Osx, Alpl, Bglap, Spp1) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Sixty female Fischer rats underwent L4-5 posterolateral fusion (PLF) with placement of 1 of 5 implants: (1) ICBG from syngeneic rats; (2) ICBG+BioRestore; (3) BioRestore alone; (4) ICBG+Allograft; or (5) ICBG+MasterGraft. Spines were harvested 8 weeks postoperatively and evaluated for bone formation and fusion via radiography, blinded manual palpation, microCT, and histology.
RESULTS: After culture for 1 week, BioRestore promoted similar expression levels of Runx2 and Osx to cells grown on DBM. At the 2-week timepoint, the relative ALP activity for BioRestore-OM was significantly higher (P<0.001) than that of ACS-OM and DBM-OM (P<0.01) and statistically equivalent to cells grown on allograft-OM. In vivo, radiographic and microCT evaluation showed some degree of bridging bone formation in all groups tested, with the exception of BioRestore alone, which did not produce successful fusions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the capacity of BioRestore to promote osteoinductivity in vitro. In vivo, BioRestore performed similarly to commercially available bone graft extender materials but was incapable of producing fusion as a bone graft substitute.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app