In vivo tissue response and durability of five novel synthetic polymers in a rabbit model

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSahin, E
dc.contributor.authorCingi, C
dc.contributor.authorEskiizmir, G
dc.contributor.authorAltintoprak, N
dc.contributor.authorCalli, A
dc.contributor.authorCalli, C
dc.contributor.authorYilgör, I
dc.contributor.authorYilgör, E
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-18T12:06:30Z
dc.date.available2024-07-18T12:06:30Z
dc.description.abstractAlloplastic materials are frequently used in facial plastic surgeries such as rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction. Unfortunately, the ideal alloplastic material has not been found. This experimental study evaluates the tissue response and durability of five novel polymers developed as an alloplastic material. In this experimental study involving a tertiary university hospital, six subcuticular pockets were formed at the back of 10 rabbits for the implantation of each polymer and sham group. Each pocket was excised with its adjacent tissue after three months, and collected for histopathological examination. Semi-quantitative examination including neovascularisation, inflammation, fibrosis, abscess formation, multinucleated foreign body giant cells was performed, and integrity of polymer was evaluated. A statistical comparison was performed. No statically significant difference was detected in neovascularisation, inflammation, fibrosis, abscess formation and multinucleated foreign body giant cells when a paired comparison between sham and polymer II, II and IV groups was performed individually. Nevertheless, the degree of fibrosis was less than sham group in polymer I (p = .027) and V (p = .018), although the other variables were almost similar. The integrity of polymers II (9 intact, 1 fragmented) and IV (8 intact, 2 absent) was better than the other polymers. These novel synthetic polymers could be considered as good candidates for clinical applicability. All polymers provided satisfactory results in terms of tissue response; however, fibrovascular integration was higher in polymers II, II and IV. In addition, the durability of polymer II and IV was better than the others.
dc.identifier.issn0392-100X
dc.identifier.other1827-675X
dc.identifier.urihttp://akademikarsiv.cbu.edu.tr:4000/handle/123456789/10439
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.publisherPACINI EDITORE
dc.subjectPOROUS POLYETHYLENE IMPLANTS
dc.subjectORBITAL IMPLANTS
dc.subjectBIOMATERIALS
dc.subjectBIOCOMPATIBILITY
dc.subjectBONE
dc.titleIn vivo tissue response and durability of five novel synthetic polymers in a rabbit model
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Web of Science Koleksiyonu