Biomechanical comparison of xenogeneic bone material treated with different methods

• DOI: 10.1111/xen.12343
• Publication Date: 2017-09-25T04:16:45Z
• Authors: Wei Feng; Dongsong Li; Junting Zang; Li Fu
• Keywords: Cryopreservation; 0303 health sciences; 03 medical and health sciences; Bone Transplantation; Swine; Elastic Modulus; Transplantation, Heterologous; Animals; Transplantation, Homologous; Biomechanical Phenomena

Bone xenografting is considered one of the most effective ways to address shortage bone autografts and allografts. Various methods have been employed minimize immune rejection issues associated with xenografts. However, side effects such on biomechanical properties remain unclear. As such, objective this study was compare influence different treatments porcine bones. Fresh pig ribs were cut into 1.5 × 0.5 0.4 cm specimens, which randomly divided four groups subjected modification regimes: group A by degreasing partial deproteinization, B cryopreservation, C cryopreservation enzyme digestion, D a control using fresh bone. Biomechanical tests α-Gal antigen detection performed for all groups. In axial compression test, values maximum load as follows: > A. The in significantly less than other (P < .05). There no differences between D, C, terms stress elastic modulus recorded significant or among B, three-point bending test lower antigen-positive expression detected. there low level expression, while high observed samples. results indicated that xenogeneic deproteinization had worst properties. Cryopreservation digestion little effect properties, although resulted complete elimination antigen. treatment presented best removing immune-response triggering antigen, preserving good