Viability of Cartilage Grafts in Various Forms

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridAYDIN, Nasuhi/0000-0003-3145-2432
dc.authorwosidAYDIN, Nasuhi Engin/L-1607-2019
dc.authorwosidAydin, Nasuhi E/B-6536-2012
dc.authorwosidFirat, Cemal/D-1292-2012
dc.authorwosidAYDIN, Nasuhi/O-9043-2016
dc.contributor.authorFirat, Cemal
dc.contributor.authorGurlek, Ali
dc.contributor.authorAydin, Nasuhi Engin
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:35:34Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:35:34Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe viability of cartilage grafts, in many forms, has been researched since the using of cartilage grafts in surgical procedures. Cryopreservation period and viability of cartilage grafts have remained unclear. This study was performed to investigate the durability, viability, and behavior of fresh or cryopreserved cartilage grafts when used as autografts or allografts in various forms. Six cartilage grafts (1 of each preparation type; 3 blocks and 3 diced) were prepared by wrapping with Surgicel or autogenous fascia, or they were left bare. After the graft preparation stage, the cartilage grafts were inserted into pockets prepared on the dorsum of each rabbit. Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 (6 rabbits in each group) received autogenous fresh grafts, allogenous fresh grafts, autogenous cryopreserved grafts, and allogenous cryopreserved grafts, respectively. All cartilage grafts were implanted for 2 months. At the end of the second month, specimens were harvested and analyzed. The bare grafts provided the most viable specimens. There was no significant difference between the frozen or fresh and allograft or autograft groups with respect to viability and resorption ratios. The bare block graft, in all groups, survived significantly more than the other graft types. Allografts (homografts), similar autografts, did not create major problems, and they had excellent host tolerance and low antigenicity, especially when the perichondrium was removed. Viability and durability of the bare grafts (diced and block) were better than fascia or Surgicel-wrapped cartilage graft forms.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0b013e31822f3b1f
dc.identifier.endpage1670en_US
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21959409en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-80053498806en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1666en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31822f3b1f
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/95452
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000295398700027en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Craniofacial Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCartilage graftsen_US
dc.subjectcartilage viabilityen_US
dc.subjectcryopreserved cartilageen_US
dc.subjectdiced cartilageen_US
dc.titleViability of Cartilage Grafts in Various Formsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu