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

Table 2 Histopathological evaluation of bone defect healing and composite/xenograft resorption and remodeling at 60 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 = 0.010; bP = 0.008; cP = 0.270
30-50	1 (9.1)	0 (0)	0 (0)
51-80	10 (90.9)	6 (54.5)	5 (45.5)
> 80	0 (0)	5 (45.5)	6 (54.5)
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	7 (63.4)	11 (100)	11 (100)	aP = 0.001; bP = 0.007; cP = 0.606
30-50	4 (36.6)	0 (0)	0 (0)
51-80	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
> 80	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Fibroplastic barrier
No	11 (100)	11 (100)	5 (45.5)	aP = 1.000; bP = 0.012; cP = 1.000
Yes	0 (0)	0 (0)	6 (54.5)
Migration of composite/xenograft
Intramedullary		0.8 ± 0.9	0.4 ± 0.5	aP = 0.332; bP = 0.270; cP = 0.034
No displacement		5 (45.5)	7 (63.6)
Local displacement		3 (27.3)	4 (36.4)
Moderate migration		3 (27.3)	0 (0)
Pronounced migration		0 (0)	0 (0)
Extraosseous migration		0 (0)	0.1 ± 0.3
Absence		0 (0)	10 (90.9)	aP = 0.478; bP = 0.748; cP = 0.748
Presence		0 (0)	1 (9.1)

^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].