Effects of local vibration and pulsed electromagnetic field on bone fracture: A comparative study
View/ Open
Access
info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessDate
2017Author
Bilgin, Hakkı MuratÇelik, Ferhat
Gem, Mehmet
Akpolat, Veysi
Yıldız, İsmail
Ekinci, Aysun
Özerdem, Mehmet Siraç
Tunik, Selçuk
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Bilgin, H. M., Çelik, F., Gem, F., Akpolat, V., Yıldız, İ., Ekinci, A. ve diğerleri. (2017). Effects of local vibration and pulsed electromagnetic field on bone fracture: A comparative study. Bioelectromagnetics, 38(5), 339-348.Abstract
The effectiveness of various therapeutic methods on bone fracture has been demonstrated in several studies. In the present study, we tried to evaluate the effect of local low-magnitude, high-frequency vibration (LMHFV) on rat tibia fracture in comparison with pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) during the healing process. Mid-diaphysis tibiae fractures were induced in 30 Sprague-Dawley rats. The rats were assigned into groups such as control (CONT), LMHFV (15 min/day, 7 days/week), and PEMF (3.5 h/day, 7 days/week) for a three-week treatment. Nothing was applied to control group. Radiographs, serum osteocalcin levels, and stereological bone analyses of the three groups were compared. The X-rays of tibiae were taken 21 days after the end of the healing process. PEMF and LMHFV groups had more callus formation when compared to CONT group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.375). Serum osteocalcin levels were elevated in the experimental groups compared to CONT (P <= 0.001). Stereological tests also showed higher osteogenic results in experimental groups, especially in LMHFV group. The results of the present study suggest that application of direct local LMHFV on fracture has promoted bone formation, showing great potential in improving fracture outcome. (C) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
WoS Q Category
Q2Scopus Q Category
Q3Volume
38Issue
5URI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22043https://hdl.handle.net/11468/13989
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.22043