Abstract
Although various studies have investigated differences in the tissue reaction pattern to synthetic and xenogeneic bone substitute materials (BSMs), a lack of knowledge exists regarding the classification of both materials based on the DIN ISO 10993-6 scoring system, as well as the histomorphometrical measurement of macrophage subtypes within their implantation beds. Thus, the present study was conducted to analyze in vivo responses to both xenogeneic and synthetic bone substitute granules. A standardized calvaria implantation model in Wistar rats, in combination with established scoring, histological, histopathological, and histomorphometrical methods, was conducted to analyze the influence of both biomaterials on bone regeneration and the immune response. The results showed that the application of the synthetic BSM maxresorb® induced a higher pro-inflammatory tissue response, while the xenogeneic BSM cerabone® induced a higher anti-inflammatory reaction. Additionally, comparable bone regeneration amounts were found in both study groups. Histopathological scoring revealed that the synthetic BSM exhibited non-irritant scores at all timepoints using the xenogeneic BSM as control. Overall, the results demonstrated the biocompatibility of synthetic BSM maxresorb® and support the conclusion that this material class is a suitable alternative to natural BSM, such as the analyzed xenogeneic material cerabone®, for a broad range of indications.