Physicochemical characterization of RSU-Graft comparison with Bio-Oss®
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Bio-Oss® is the deproteinized bovine bone graft material that has been widely used in dentistry because of its successful treatment result, but its cost is relatively high. Therefore, it is beneficial to develop bone substitute comparable to Bio-Oss®. Thus, the purpose of this research is to compare physicochemical properties of RSU-Graft and Bio-Oss®. Bio-Oss® are xenogenic granules (bovine bone heated to 300ºC, sizes of granules are 0.25-1mm) and RSU-Graft is xenograft (bovine bones heated at 900ºC, sizes of granules are 0.25-1mm). This study used 4 measurement methods, including 1) scanning electron microscopy (SEM), 2) X-ray diffraction (XRD), 3) energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and 4) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR). For the results, RSU-Graft had the Ca/P ratio higher than 1.67 and did not have distinctive pore size to measure. The crystalline hydroxyapatite corresponded to HAp was slightly greater crystallinity than Bio-Oss®. Also, OH- groups were found in Bio-Oss® because there was small amount of water remaining in the sample, whereas RSU-Graft showed no OH- group which indicated complete dehydration. For conclusions, RSU-Graft had similar properties compared to Bio-Oss®. It had slightly higher crystallinity but it did not have distinctive pore size. Nevertheless, RSU-Graft needs further experiment on other physicochemical properties before in vitro and in vivo studies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The opinions and content expressed in the articles are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy and correctness of their work.
Any reuse, reproduction, or redistribution of the articles, content, data, or images in other forms requires prior written permission from the Thai Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
References
Punyanitya S, Thiansem S, Raksujarit A, Ruksanti A, Kunnawut R, Laosatirawong S. Chotika Bone 1: production and laboratory testing. Neurological Surgery. 2011;2:145-55. (in Thai)
Accorsi-Mendonca T, Conz MB, Barros TC, de Sena LA, Soares Gde A, Granjeiro JM. Physicochemical characterization of two deproteinized bovine xenografts. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22:5-10.
Mellonig JT. Autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts in periodontal therapy. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1992;3:333-52.
Kim Y, Nowzari H, Rich SK. Risk of prion disease transmission through bovine-derived bone substitutes: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:645-53.
do Desterro Fde P, Sader MS, Soares GD, Vidigal GM, Jr. Can inorganic bovine bone grafts present distinct properties? Braz Dent J. 2014;25:282-8.
Pripatnanont P. Xenograft. In: Pripatnanont P, editor. Bone substitute material in dental implant. Songkhla: Prince of Songkla University; 2016. p. 43-5.
Lee DSH, Pai Y, Chang S. Physicochemical characterization of InterOss® and Bio-Oss® anorganic bovine bone grafting material for oral surgery – a comparative study. Mater Chem Phys. 2014;146:99-104.
Punyanitya S, Chaiwun B, Sinsuwong N, Thiansem S, Raksujarit A, Ruksanti A, et al. Chotika Bone 2: animal testing in rats and rabbits. Neurological Surgery. 2012;3:157-62. (in Thai)
Mitic Z, Stolic A, Stojanovic S, Najman S, Ignjatovic N, Nikolic G, et al. Instrumental methods and techniques for structural and physicochemical characterization of biomaterials and bone tissue: a review. Mater Sci Eng. 2017;79:930-49.
X-MaxN 80T: Oxford Instruments; 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 14].Available from: https://nano.oxinst.com/products/x-max tem/x-max-80t.
Berberi A, Samarani A, Nader N, Noujeim Z, Dagher M, Kanj W, et al. Physicochemical characteristics of bone substitutes used in oral surgery in comparison to autogenous bone. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:320790.
Pramanik S, Hanif ASM, Pingguan-Murphy B, Abu Osman NA. Morphological change of heat treated bovine bone: a comparative study. Materials (Basel). 2012;6:65-75.
Yamada M, Egusa H. Current bone substitutes for implant dentistry. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:152-61.
Figueiredo M, Henriques J, Martins G, Guerra F, Judas F, Figueiredo H. Physicochemical characterization of biomaterials commonly used in dentistry as bone substitutes--comparison with human bone. Journal of biomedical materials research Part B. Applied Biomaterials.
;92:409-19.
Niakan A, Ramesh S, Ganesan P, Tan CY, Purbolaksono J, Chandran H, et al. Sintering behaviour of natural porous hydroxyapatite derived from bovine bone. Ceramics International. 2015;41:3024-9.
Joschek S, Nies B, Krotz R, Goferich A. Chemical and physicochemical characterization of porous hydroxyapatite ceramics made of natural bone. Biomaterials. 2000; 21:1645-58.
Singh R, Loo ZZ, Tan CY, Kelvin Chew WJ, Yern Chee C, Tarlochan F, et al. Characterization of biogenic hydroxyapatite derived from animal bones for biomedical applications. Ceramics International. 2018;44:10525-30.
Berzina-Cimdina L, Borodajenko N. Research of calcium phosphates using fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. In: Theophanides T, editor. Infrared, spectroscopy - materials science, engineering and technology. London: IntechOpen; 2012. p. 123-48