Copaiba oil effect on experimental jaw defect in Wistar rats
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of copaiba oil on jaw defects repair in Wistar rats treated with bioglass or adipose tissue. METHODS: A jaw defect was randomly created in forty-two rats and filled with bioglass or adipose tissue. The two groups (Gbio and Gcell) were subdivided in three subgroups wi...
| Autor principal: | SILVA, Priscilla Flores |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | BRITO, Marcus Vinicius Henriques, PONTES, Flávia Sirotheau Corrêa, RAMOS, Suzana Rodrigues, MENDES, Laís Cordeiro, OLIVEIRA, Louize Caroline Marques |
| Grau: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Publicado em: |
Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
2015
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Acesso em linha: |
http://repositorio.ufpa.br/jspui/handle/2011/6488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502015002000006 |
| Resumo: |
|---|
|
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of copaiba oil on jaw defects repair in Wistar rats treated with bioglass or adipose tissue. METHODS: A jaw defect was randomly created in forty-two rats and filled with bioglass or adipose tissue. The two groups (Gbio and Gcell) were subdivided in three subgroups with seven animals each according to gavage administration: control (distillated water), oil (copaiba oil) and melox (meloxicam). Euthanasia was performed after forty post-operative days. The bone formation was analyzed regarding the histological aspects. RESULTS: The osteoclasts activity was observed only in four subgroups (p=0.78). Regarding the osteoblasts presence, it was very similar between the subgroups, the difference was due to Gcell-melox (p=0.009) that presented less osteoblastic activity. The inflammatory cells were more evident in Gcell-melox subgroup, however, there was no difference in comparison with the other subgroups (p=0.52). Bone formation was observed in all subgroups, just two animals showed no bone formation even after 40 days. More than 50% of bone matrix mineralization was observed in 56% (23 animals) of the analyzed areas. The bone matrix mineralization was not different between subgroups (p=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The subgroups that received copaiba oil showed bone repair, although not statistically significant in comparison to subgroups treated whit meloxicam or controls. Copaiba oil administered by gavage had no effect on bone repair in this experimental model. |