The Experimental Study On Bone Reconstruction Of Alveolar Cleft By Different Materials

Object: Establish rabbit’s model of unilateral alveolar cleft, discuss the effect ofmaxillary growth further and development and compare the respective osteogeniccapability to regenerate alveolar cleft which used autogenous iliac bone,puredecalcified bone material and acrylic cement.Method:(1) choose40New Zealand white rabbits (8weeks old,1~1.2kg.) assamples and result in their unilateral alveolar cleft through operation;(2) these40rabbits were averagely divided into4groups randomly: iliac bone group, decalcifiedbone group, acrylic cement group and blank group2weeks after operation. The otherthree groups are implanted autogenous iliac bone,,pure decalcified bone material andacrylic cement into the defects respectively except that the blank group wassubjected to no disposal;(3) observe their skulls by three-dimensional CT after2weeks,4weeks,6weeks and8weeks respectively and measure the distance betweensutures of maxillary, moreover, obtain the CT numbers to master the development ofmaxillary.2rabbits in each group were sacrificed to obtain their tissue samples andobserve them to master the information of osteogenic capability. We conduct pairedt-test analysis on the data of the healthy sides and sick sides by applying SPSS19.0software and conduct one-way analysis of variance(LSD) to the data of differentgroups. In addition, compare the difference of effect of maxillary growth anddevelopment and osteogenic capability between test groups and blank group.Results:2,4,6and8weeks after operation:(1) we can see that effect onmaxillary development varies according to different test groups,①we can see that Pare all greater than0.05by comparing the width and height of maxillary, so these data have no statistical significance;②compare the skewness of snout we find that Pin acrylic cement group are smaller than0.05,so this data has statistical significance,but P in other three groups are all greater than0.05by pairwise comparison, so thesedata have no statistical significance. The center line in every group is prone to thedefect side and the skewing of these groups are as follows: the blank group(-0.83±0.31), iliac bone group(-1.10±0.50), decalcified bone(-1.09±0.41), acrylic cementgroup(-0.52±0.13);③P are smaller than0.05by comparing the maxillary length ofhealthy side and defect side, so these data have statistical significance, the maxillarylength of the defect side is reduced comparing to the control side in every group;④the maxillary length of test groups are markedly shorter than the blank group, and thesequence is blank group(26.59±1.01), iliac bone group(24.53±0.65), decalcifiedbone group(23.60±1.01) and acrylic cement group(21.36±1.09) from big to small;⑤P are smaller than0.05by comparing the width of alveolar bone in defect side intest groups, so these data have statistical significance, the sequence is acrylic cementgroup(4.7±0.12), iliac bone group(4.59±0.18), decalcified bone group(4.24±0.10)and blank group(3.39±0.08) from big to small;⑥P are smaller than0.05bycomparing the CT number at the defect which implanted restorative materials in testgroups, so these data have statistical significance the sequence of CT number isacrylic cement group(1356.29±31.46), iliac bone group(567.82±3.11), decalcifiedbone group(332.63±8.59) and blank group(62.16±2.85) from big to small;(2) theosteogenic capability varies obviously among different groups, we adoptLane-Sandhu histological scoring criteria to carry out histology detection. The resultis that the healing capacity of iliac bone group(8.10±0.7) is excellent, decalcifiedbone group(3.30±0.64) is worse and no new bone grow in blank group(2.50±0.50)and acrylic cement group(2.40+0.49).Conclusion: we cure alveolar cleft by using different restorative materials andobserve the development of maxillary and partial osteogenic capability viaiconography and histology detection. By comparison, we can see that (1) the degreeof effect on maxillary development caused by different materials varies after the treatment of defect model with implanting different bone substitute materials and thesequence which from big to small is acrylic cement, decalcified bone and autogenousiliac bone;(2) from the aspect of osteogenic capacity the sequence which from goodto bad is autogenous iliac bone, decalcified bone and acrylic cement, iliac bonegroup is obviously superior to other groups.