Osteoreparative potential of nanofibrillated cellulose, xenograft, and butvar-phenolic adhesive-based composite

Table 1 Histopathological evaluation of bone defect healing and composite/xenograft resorption and remodeling at 30 days, n (%)/mean ± SD

	Control (n = 11)	Xenograft (n = 11)	Composite (n = 11)	P value
Closure of cortical plate defect (%)
Bone tissue
< 30	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	aP = 0.01; bP = 0.013; cP = 0.699
30-50	5 (45.5)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)
51-80	6 (54.5)	8 (72.7)	9 (81.8)
> 80	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (9.1)
Cartilage tissue
< 30	11 (100)	11 (100)	11 (100)	-
30-50	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
51-80	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
> 80	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Fibrous tissue
< 30	2 (18.1)	4 (36.4)	11 (100)	aP = 0.001; bP = 0.001; cP = 1.00
30-50	9 (81.9)	6 (54.5)	0 (0)
51-80	0 (0)	1 (9.1)	0 (0)
> 80	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Fibroplastic barrier
No	11 (100)	11 (100)	5 (45.5)	aP = 1.00; bP = 0.012; cP = 0.063
Yes	0 (0)	0 (0)	6 (54.5)
Migration of composite/xenograft
Intramedullary		1.6 ± 0.8	0.3 ± 0.5	aP = 0.217; bP = 0.001; cP = 0.008
No displacement		1 (9.1)	8 (72.7)
Local displacement		3 (27.3)	3 (27.3)
Moderate migration		6 (54.5)	0 (0)
Pronounced migration		1 (9.1)	0 (0)
Extraosseous migration		0 (0)	0.3 ± 0.5
Absence		11 (100)	8 (72.7)	aP = 0.748; bP = 1.00; cP = 0.748
Presence		0 (0)	3 (27.3)

^aP indicates difference between control and xenograft.

^bP indicates difference between control and composite.

^cP indicates difference between xenograft and composite.

Histomorphometric evaluation was performed in accordance with previously published criteria[48].