A new bone adhesive to fix mandible fractures in New Zealand rabbits: cytotoxicity assay and comparison of bone formation with conventional plate and screw method
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Using plate and screws as the conventional bone fixation method in maxillofacial fractures leads to many complications as plate exposure, infection or unpleasant feeling on touching. Finding a substitute fixation method has been a far desire for many years. Purpose: This study compared the new bone formation using an experimental bone adhesive containing a functional monomer (benzophenone tetracarboxylic di-methacrylate, BTDMA) and the conventional plate and screw in fractured mandibles of rabbit. Materials and Method: This is an experimental animal study. The artificial fractures were induced at the mandibular angles of three male New Zealand rabbits. Screw and plate were used as control and titanium mesh with the resin-based bone adhesive containing 15 wt. % BTDMA monomer were applied as treatment. The mandible radiography were obtained and the density of the fracture line was compared to the control. The newly formed bone was assessed by a microscope. Results: The results obtained from the MTT cytotoxicity assay showed that 70% of cells were able to grow in the presence of the adhesive. The radiographic density of mesh-adhesive specimens was 119.88±76.29, while conventional plate specimens’ density was 120.38±73.89. The average new bone formation score in the mesh specimens and plate specimens was 3.67±4.62 and 7±4.36, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The application of bone adhesive containing 15% BTDMA monomer in a group of the rabbits showed lamellar bone formation. Conclusion: Using bone adhesives containing BTDMA could lead to a new bone formation with high density in the case of adequate bonding to the fractured area. Keywords: Fractures; Bone; Bone cements; Osteogenesis.
1. Zerfowski M, Bremerich A. Facial trauma in children and adolescents. Clin Oral Investig. 1998;2(3):120-4.
2. Sharma M, Patil V, Singh R, Kulkarni S. Role of intermaxillary screw fixation in maxillofacial trauma: A prospective study. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2019;5(3):163-6.
3. Siddiqi A, Payne AG, De Silva RK, Duncan WJ. Titanium allergy: could it affect dental implant integration? Clinical oral implants research. 2011;22(7):673-80.
4. McKenna PB, O’Shea K, Burke T. Less is more: lag screw only fixation of lateral malleolar fractures. Int Orthop. 2007;31(4):497-502.
5. Lambrecht J, Filippi A, Künzel A, Schiel H. Long-term evaluation of submerged and nonsubmerged ITI solid-screw titanium implants: A 10-year life table analysis of 468 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(6):602.
6. Adserias-Garriga J. A review of forensic analysis of dental and maxillofacial skeletal trauma. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;299:80-8.
7. Enislidis G, Pichorner S, Lambert F, Wagner A, Kainberger F, Kautzky M, et al. Fixation of zygomatic fractures with a new biodegradable copolymer osteosynthesis system: Preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;27(5):352-5.
8. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):15-46.
9. Smeets R, Marx R, Kolk A, Said-Yekta S, Grosjean MB, Stoll C, et al. In vitro study of adhesive polymethylmethacrylate bone cement bonding to cortical bone in maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(12):3028-33.
10. Heiss C, Kraus R, Schluckebier D, Stiller A-C, Wenisch S, Schnettler R. Bone adhesives in trauma and orthopedic surgery. Eur J Trauma. 2006;32(2):141-8.
11. Sánchez‐Fernández MJ, Hammoudeh H, Félix Lanao RP, van Erk M, van Hest JC, Leeuwenburgh SC. Bone‐adhesive materials: clinical requirements, mechanisms of action, and future perspective. Adv Mater Interfaces. 2019;6(4):1802021.
12. Wolfaardt JF, Tam V, Faulkner MG, Prasad N. Mechanical behavior of three maxillofacial prosthetic adhesive systems: a pilot project. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(6):943-9.
13. Lauto A, Mawad D, Foster LJR. Adhesive biomaterials for tissue reconstruction. J Chem Tech Biotechnol: International Research in Process, Environmental & Clean Technology. 2008;83(4):464-72.
14. Columbus PS, Anderson J. Adhesive cyanoacrylate compositions with reduced adhesion to skin. US Patent 4,444,933; 1984.
15. Patel S, Thakar RG, Wong J, McLeod SD, Li S. Control of cell adhesion on poly (methyl methacrylate). Biomaterials. 2006;27(14):2890-7.
16. Borst HG, Haverich A, Walterbusch G, Maatz W, Messmer B. Fibrin adhesive: an important hemostatic adjunct in cardiovascular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;84(4):548-53.
17. Chen Q, Baino F, Pugno NM, Vitale-Brovarone C. Bonding strength of glass-ceramic trabecular-like coatings to ceramic substrates for prosthetic applications. Mater Sci Eng C. 2013;33(3):1530-8.
18. Buckley MJ, Beckman EJ. Adhesive use in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin. 2010;22(1):195-9.
19. Atai M, Nekoomanesh M, Hashemi S, Yeganeh H. Synthesis and characterization of BTDA‐based dimethacrylate dental adhesive monomer and its interaction with Ca2+ ions. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2002;86(13):3246-9.
20. Sharifi R, Atai M, Mohajeri M, Bahrami N. Comparison of a novel adhesive system and plate and screw for facial fracture osteosynthesis. Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Research. 2019:20-5.
21. Meerloo JV, Kaspers GJ, Cloos J. Cell sensitivity assays: the MTT assay. In: Cree IA, editor. Cancer cell culture. 731. Humana Press: Springer; 2011. p. 237-45.
22. Al-Jandan BA, Ahmed MG, Al-Khalifa KS, Farooq I. Should surgical burs be used as single-use devices to avoid cross infection? A case-control study. Med Princ Pract. 2016;25(2):159-62.
23. Dadaş B, Alkan S, Cifci M, Başak T. Treatment of tripod fracture of zygomatic bone by N-2-butyl cyanoacrylate glue fixation, and its effects on the tissues. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol. 2007;264(5):539-44.
24. Atai M, Nekoomanesh M, Hashemi S, Amani S. Physical and mechanical properties of an experimental dental composite based on a new monomer. Dent Mater. 2004;20(7):663-8.
2. Sharma M, Patil V, Singh R, Kulkarni S. Role of intermaxillary screw fixation in maxillofacial trauma: A prospective study. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2019;5(3):163-6.
3. Siddiqi A, Payne AG, De Silva RK, Duncan WJ. Titanium allergy: could it affect dental implant integration? Clinical oral implants research. 2011;22(7):673-80.
4. McKenna PB, O’Shea K, Burke T. Less is more: lag screw only fixation of lateral malleolar fractures. Int Orthop. 2007;31(4):497-502.
5. Lambrecht J, Filippi A, Künzel A, Schiel H. Long-term evaluation of submerged and nonsubmerged ITI solid-screw titanium implants: A 10-year life table analysis of 468 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(6):602.
6. Adserias-Garriga J. A review of forensic analysis of dental and maxillofacial skeletal trauma. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;299:80-8.
7. Enislidis G, Pichorner S, Lambert F, Wagner A, Kainberger F, Kautzky M, et al. Fixation of zygomatic fractures with a new biodegradable copolymer osteosynthesis system: Preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;27(5):352-5.
8. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):15-46.
9. Smeets R, Marx R, Kolk A, Said-Yekta S, Grosjean MB, Stoll C, et al. In vitro study of adhesive polymethylmethacrylate bone cement bonding to cortical bone in maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(12):3028-33.
10. Heiss C, Kraus R, Schluckebier D, Stiller A-C, Wenisch S, Schnettler R. Bone adhesives in trauma and orthopedic surgery. Eur J Trauma. 2006;32(2):141-8.
11. Sánchez‐Fernández MJ, Hammoudeh H, Félix Lanao RP, van Erk M, van Hest JC, Leeuwenburgh SC. Bone‐adhesive materials: clinical requirements, mechanisms of action, and future perspective. Adv Mater Interfaces. 2019;6(4):1802021.
12. Wolfaardt JF, Tam V, Faulkner MG, Prasad N. Mechanical behavior of three maxillofacial prosthetic adhesive systems: a pilot project. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(6):943-9.
13. Lauto A, Mawad D, Foster LJR. Adhesive biomaterials for tissue reconstruction. J Chem Tech Biotechnol: International Research in Process, Environmental & Clean Technology. 2008;83(4):464-72.
14. Columbus PS, Anderson J. Adhesive cyanoacrylate compositions with reduced adhesion to skin. US Patent 4,444,933; 1984.
15. Patel S, Thakar RG, Wong J, McLeod SD, Li S. Control of cell adhesion on poly (methyl methacrylate). Biomaterials. 2006;27(14):2890-7.
16. Borst HG, Haverich A, Walterbusch G, Maatz W, Messmer B. Fibrin adhesive: an important hemostatic adjunct in cardiovascular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;84(4):548-53.
17. Chen Q, Baino F, Pugno NM, Vitale-Brovarone C. Bonding strength of glass-ceramic trabecular-like coatings to ceramic substrates for prosthetic applications. Mater Sci Eng C. 2013;33(3):1530-8.
18. Buckley MJ, Beckman EJ. Adhesive use in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin. 2010;22(1):195-9.
19. Atai M, Nekoomanesh M, Hashemi S, Yeganeh H. Synthesis and characterization of BTDA‐based dimethacrylate dental adhesive monomer and its interaction with Ca2+ ions. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2002;86(13):3246-9.
20. Sharifi R, Atai M, Mohajeri M, Bahrami N. Comparison of a novel adhesive system and plate and screw for facial fracture osteosynthesis. Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Research. 2019:20-5.
21. Meerloo JV, Kaspers GJ, Cloos J. Cell sensitivity assays: the MTT assay. In: Cree IA, editor. Cancer cell culture. 731. Humana Press: Springer; 2011. p. 237-45.
22. Al-Jandan BA, Ahmed MG, Al-Khalifa KS, Farooq I. Should surgical burs be used as single-use devices to avoid cross infection? A case-control study. Med Princ Pract. 2016;25(2):159-62.
23. Dadaş B, Alkan S, Cifci M, Başak T. Treatment of tripod fracture of zygomatic bone by N-2-butyl cyanoacrylate glue fixation, and its effects on the tissues. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol. 2007;264(5):539-44.
24. Atai M, Nekoomanesh M, Hashemi S, Amani S. Physical and mechanical properties of an experimental dental composite based on a new monomer. Dent Mater. 2004;20(7):663-8.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 9, No 4 (Autumn 2022) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jcr.v9i4.13381 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Fractures; Bone; Bone cements; Osteogenesis. | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Sharifi R, Atai M, Aminishakib P, Bahrami N, Nezaminia S. A new bone adhesive to fix mandible fractures in New Zealand rabbits: cytotoxicity assay and comparison of bone formation with conventional plate and screw method. J Craniomaxillofac Res. 2023;9(4):162-169.
