{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017049180327868854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005245901639344262, 'mean_word_length': 5.438818565400844, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Endochondral vs. intramembranous demineralized bone matrices as implants for osseous defects.

This study focuses on the difference in regenerative capacity between endochondral and intramembranous demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) when implanted into bony defects. It also focuses on the possible influence of the type of skeletal recipient site (orthotopic or heterotopic). Of 34 Wistar rats, 10 served as a source of DBM, and 24 were divided into two groups of 12 animals. In group A identical defects were produced in the parietal bones, whereas in group B the defects were produced in each radius. The right defects were implanted with endochondral DBM and the left defects were implanted with intramembranous DBM. Descriptive and/or histomorphometric analyses were performed by means of light and polarized microscopy, and radiography (group B). Right and left data were compared to disclose differences in bone-healing capacity. The quantitative results demonstrated that endochondral DBM displays a greater regenerative capacity than intramembranous DBM when implanted heterotopically. The different clinical performances of endochondral and intramembranous bone grafts might be explained on the basis of the mechanical rather than the osteoinductive principle. The qualitative results suggest that the type of bone deposition induced by the DBMs is not related to the type of implanted DBM. Recipient site characteristics and/or environmental factors seem decisive in the occurrence of either types of ossification.