Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objectives Despite being an important research topic in oral biomaterials, few studies have demonstrated the differences between poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite (PLGA/HA) and poly(d,l-lactic acid)/hydroxyapatite (PDLLA/HA). In this study, PLGA/HA and PDLLA/HA scaffolds were prepared using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology and implanted into radius defects in rabbits to assess their effects on bone regeneration. Methods In this study, 6 mm × 4 mm bone defects were generated in the bilateral radii of rabbits. 3D-printed PLGA/HA and PDLLA/HA scaffolds were implanted into the defects. X-ray imaging, micro-computed tomography, and hematoxylin–eosin staining were performed to observe the degradation of the materials, the presence of new bone, and bone remodeling in the bone defect area. Results The PLGA/HA scaffolds displayed complete degradation at 20 weeks, whereas PDLLA/HA scaffolds exhibited incomplete degradation. Active osteoblasts were detected in both groups. The formation of new bone, bone marrow cavity reconstruction, and cortical bone remodeling were better in the PLGA/HA group than in the PDLLA/HA group. Conclusions PLGA/HA scaffolds performed better than PDLLA/HA scaffolds in repairing bone defects, making the former scaffolds more suitable as bone substitutes at the same high molecular weight.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lv et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: