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

Table 3 Histopathological evaluation of bone defect healing and composite/xenograft resorption and remodeling at 90 days, n (%)/mean ± SD

	Control (n = 11)	Xenograft (n = 11)	Composite (n = 11)	P value
Closure of cortical defect (%)
Bone tissue
< 30	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	aP = 0.217; bP = 0.365; cP = 0.699
30-50	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
51-80	1 (9.1)	0 (0)	2 (18.2)
> 80	10 (91.9)	11 (100)	9 (81.8)
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	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)
Fibroplastic barrier
No	11 (100)	11 (100)	11 (100)
Yes	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Migration of composite/xenograft
Intramedullary		0 (0)	0.3 ± 0.5	aP = 0.010; bP = 0.300; cP = 0.065
No displacement		11 (100)	8 (72.7)
Local displacement		0 (0)	3 (27.3)
Moderate migration		0 (0)	0 (0)
Pronounced migration		0 (0)	0 (0)
Extraosseous migration			0
Absence		11 (100)	11 (100)	aP = 0.748; bP = 1.00; cP = 0.748
Presence		0 (0)	0 (0)

^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].