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].

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].

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].

Table 4 Histological evaluation of resistance to bacterial inflammatory damage, mean ± SD

	Xenograft (n = 11)	Composite (n = 11)	P value
Osteonecrosis	1.8 ± 0.8	0.4 ± 0.5	P = 0.001
Polymorphonuclear leukocyte infiltration	2.5 ± 0.5	0.9 ± 0.8	P = 0.001
Eosinophils	0	0
Lymphocyte and macrophage infiltration	1.4 ± 0.7	1.0 ± 0.6	P = 0.243
Bacterial contamination	0.2 ± 0.4	0

P indicates difference between xenograft and mixed composite. Histomorphometric evaluation was performed in accordance with previously published criteria[48].